EPA 904/9-77-018
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
GREENSBORO - GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
201 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
PROJECT NUMBERS C37037601
C37036901
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308
IN COOPERATION WITH
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
RALEIGH, N.C. 27611
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GREENSBORO-GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
201 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
EPA PROJECT NOS. C37037601
C37036901
Prepared by
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Approved
Regional Administrator
In cooperation with
the State of North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Approved
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Greensboro-Guilford County, North Carolina
201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Project No. C-37037601
C-3703 6901
Draft (X)
Final ( )
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
1. Type of Action: , Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action :
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in response
to the action of awarding grant funds to the City of Greensboro,
North Carolina for the purpose of developing a wastewater treat-
ment system to service the Greensboro-Guilford County area. The
project consists of the necessary facilities to process and treat
approximately 36 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater.
Guilford County, North Carolina will be potentially affected by
the proposed action.
Physically, the proposed action consists of upgrading the
existing North Buffalo Creek Treatment Plant (NBP) to tertiary
treatment at 16 MGD, abandoning the South Buffalo Creek Treatment
Plant (SBP), constructing a 60-inch diameter outfall from that
plant location to a new 20 MGD plant located 26,000 feet downstream
on South Buffalo Creek.
The proposed action will provide for:
(1) the removal of inadequately treated wastewater dis-
charged from the municipal wastewater treatment system
(2) wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate existing
and future sources of wastewater
(3) allowance for orderly growth in Greensboro-GuilfOrd
County area
I
-------
3. Summary of Major nvironmental Impacts
Direct adverse impacts associated with the proposed action are
minor. Sewer construction and construction activity at the new
plant site will cause short-term, minor stream siltation and in-
creased air-borne particulates. Some natural vegetation will also
be destroyed, continuing a trend to habitat fragmentation, Some
human inhabitants will be subjected to temporary noise levels
that exceed acceptable thresholds. Water quality will be improved
in the lower stream reaches, but stream quality will remain stressed
in the immediate Greensboro vicinity due to industrial discharges
and urban runoff. A 26,000-foot segment of South Buffalo Creek
below the existing facility will undergo a substantial decrease in
flow. Abandonment of the existing South Buffalo plant may cause
a requirement for vector 1 control downstream of the existing muni-
cipal outfall for several years. The proposed action is well-matched
to projected growth patterns, accommodating desired growth while
discouraging urban sprawl and other unplanned growth.
Important adverse secondary impacts include increased flooding
and the necessity for potentially unsound flood control measures,
an increase in urban runoff of poor quality that degrades streams
and reduces aquatic habitat quality, continued terrestrial habitat
attrition through residential and industrial growth, and increased
air pollution through population growth.
Major beneficial impacts beyond any water quality improvements
include elimination of the notorious odor source of the old South
Buffalo Plant which adversely affected several hundred people and
the possibility for planning orderly urban growth without environ-
mentally unsound sprawl or other effects.
4. Summary of Alternatives Considered
The EIS process identified design flows that were at signifi-
cant variance with those used for alternatives development in the
201 Facilities Plan. Using the EIS design flows, 124 possible al-
ternatives were identified as candidates. From low and medium level
screening analyses, these were reduced to 46, then to 11, and fin-
ally to seven which are presented in this Draft EIS.
Alternative 1 - Upgrade NBP to 16 MCD; upgrade and expand
SBP to 20 MGD; construct an outfall sewer from SBP to
Highway 70.
Alternative 2 - Upgrade NBP to 16 MGD; abandon SEP; con-
struct new 20 MGD plant 14,000 feet downstream from SBP;
construct interceptor to Highway 70.
1 Disease carrying or transmitting insects, e.g., flies, mosquitos.
ii
-------
Alternative 3 - Upgrade NBP to 16 MGD; abandon SBP; con-
struct new 20 MGD plant 26,000 feet downstream; construct
outfall from SBP to new plant.
Alternative 4 - Upgrade NBP to 16 MCD; abandon SBP; con-
iEruct new plant 46,500 feet downstream on Buffalo Creek;
construct outfall from SBP to new plant.
Alternative 5 - Upgrade NBP to 16 MGD; abandon SBP; con-
struct new plant 66,500 feet downstream on Buffalo Creek;
construct outfall from SBP to new plant; construct out-
fall from new plant to Reedy Fork Creek.
Alternative 6 - Upgrade NBP to 16 NGD; expand NBP to 25
MCD in 1987; upgrade SBP to 11 MGD; construct force main
from SBP to NBP.
Alternative 7 - Upgrade NBP at existing capacity; upgrade
SBP to existing capacity.
5. Comments on the Draft Statement have been requested from the
following:
Federal Agencies
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Coast Guard
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental
Quality
Department of Commerce
Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Members
Economic Development Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Fisheries and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Power Commission
of Cong es .s
State
James B. Hunt, Governor
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Council of Governments
Division of Archives and History
Honorable Robert Morgan
Honorable Jesse A. Helms
Honorable Richardson Pryor
U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
iii
-------
Commission of Agriculture
Office of State Planning
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Local
Mayor, City of Greensboro, North Carolina
Chairman, Guilford County Commission
Chairman, Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Interested Groups
Greensboro Chamber of Commerce
Board of Realtors
Greensboro Citizens Association
North Carolina A & T University
Environmental Action Coalition
League of Women Voters
Rural! Suburban Community
The Sierra Club
Guilford County Advisory Board for Environmental Quality
Concerned Citizens of McLeansville
McLeansville Community Council
Piedmont Council of Engineering and Technical Societies
NAACP
GATEWAYS
McLeansville Merchants Association
Greensboro Jaycees
Audubon Society
Homabuilders Association
6. Date made available to CEQ and the Public
The Draft Statement was made available to the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Public on July 29, 1977.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i
SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION I-i
A. Legislative and Legal Aspects I-i
B. Local Perspectives 1-2
C. Project History 1-4
II. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 1 1-1
A. Natural Environment 11-2
1. Physical Components 11-2
a. Climate 11-2
b. Odor 11-6
c. Air Quality 11-8
d. Noise 11-12
e. Geology 11-16
f. Soils 11-20
g. Hydrology 11-26
h. Sensitive Areas 11-51
2. Biological Components 11-54
a. Terrestrial Environment 11-54
b. Aquatic Environment 11-63
B. Man-Made Environment 11-81
1. Demography and Economics 11-81
a. Current Population Data 11-81
b. Current Economic Conditions 11-91
c. Population Projections 11-94
2. Land Use 11-102
a. Present General Land Use 11-102
b. Future General Land Use 11-109
3. Community Services and Facilities tI-ll5
a. Police 11-115
b. Fire Protection I-l16
c. Solid Waste Disposal 11-116
V
-------
Page
d. Schools 11-119
e. Libraries 11-120
f. Health 11-120
g. Welfare 11-121
h. Administrative Facilities 11-121
4. Taxes and Budgeting 11-121
5. Archaeological, Cultural, Historical,
and Recreational Resources 11-123
a. Archaeology 11-123
b. Historical Resources 11-124
c. Recreational Facilities 11-127
6. Transportation 11-127
7. Resource Use 11-129
a. Existing Electricity Use 11-129
b. Projected Electrical Use 11-132
c. Natural Resource Users 11-132
8. Water and Wastewater Services 11-133
a. Water Supply and Distribution 11-133
b. Wastewater Collection and
Treatment 11-135
III. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 111-1
A. Introduction 11 1-1
B. Design Flow 111-2
C. Development of System and Subsystem
Alternatives 11 1-5
1. Approach 111-5
2. Capability of Existing Facilities 111-5
3. Wastewater Treatment Process
Alternatives 111-6
a. Physical/Chemical Processes 111-7
b. Biological Processes 111-7
4. Effluent Disposal Alternatives 111-8
a. Direct Discharge to Receiving
Streams 111-8
vi
-------
Page
b. Land Application . 111-9
c. Recycle/Reuse 111-9
d. Subsurface Injection 111-10
5. Sludge Disposal Alternatives 111-10
6. Non-Structural Alternatives 1 11-11
7. Location Alternatives 111-13
D. Description of Alternatives Selected for
Evaluation 111-16
E. Effluent Limitations and Selection
of Unit Processes 111-21
F. Evaluation of Alternatives 111-25
1. General Methodology 111-25
a. Environmental Rankings 111-25
b. Cost Rankings 111-27
2. Results 111-28
a. Environmental Rankings 111-28
b. Cost Rankings 111-34
3. Other Evaluation Criteria 111-36
a. Implementability 111-36
b. Reliability 111-37
c. Resource Utilization 111-38
G. Conclusions 111-38
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION IV-l
A. Description of Proposed Facilities IV-1
1. Existing North Buffalo Facility IV-l
2. New South Buffalo Facility IV-l0
3. Collection and Sewer System IV-17
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION V-i
A. General v-i
B. Natural Environment V-2
1. Physical Components V-2
a. Air Quality V-2
b. Odor V-4
vii
-------
c. Noise .
d. Geology .
e. Soils
f. Water
g. Land/Water Interface
2. Biological Components
a. General
b. Land
c. Water
d. Sensitive Biological Areas
C. Man-Made Environment
1. Demography and Economics
2. Land Use
3. Community Services and Facilities
4. Taxes and Budgeting
5. Archaeological, Cultural, Historical,
and Recreational Resources
6. Transportation
7. Resource Use
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
MITIGAT ING MEASURES
A. Natural Environment
1. Air Quality
2. Odor
3. Noise
4. Geology
5. Soils
6. Water
7. Land/Water Interface
8. Biology
B. Man-Made Environment
VII. COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
VI.
Page
V- 7
V-16
V-18
V-20
V-41
V-43
V-43
V -44
V-46
V-49
V-50
V-50
V-54
V-57
V-59
V-60
V-62
V-63
VI-l
VI-l
VI-l
VI-l
VI-3
VI-4
VI- . .4
VI-4
VI-lo
• VI-il
VI-13
VII-l
B-i
viii
-------
SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared jointly
by the State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, in
response to legal requirements of the State of North Carolina and
the United States. It addresses those areas stipulated by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act of 1971, and the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality Guidelines of August, 1973.
1. Existing Environment
For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) the study area includes most of Guilford County as shown in
Figure 1. The total environment is divided into natural and man-
made aspects and each, while interactive, are discussed separately.
Figure 1 also shows the designated 201 area and existing wastewater
treatment facilities of Greensboro, North Carolina. Supporting
documentation is provided in a Technical Reference Document (RA-R-
406).
a. Natural Environment
Greensboro has a humid, subtropical climate character-
ized by relatively short, mild winters and long, hot summers. Pre-
cipitation is abundant. North-northeasterly and south-southeasterly
winds prevail during the year as a result of high pressure systems
which progress across the eastern United States.
Presently, the general air quality of the study area is
good with respect to the criteria pollutants. Guilford County
is designated an Air Quality Maintenance Area for suspended parti-
culates. This designation has implications regarding the future
growth of suspended particulate levels. Air pollutant emissions
in the study area are typical of a moderately industrialized urban
region. The North Buffalo sludge incinerator is the only significant
source of air pollutants at the treatment plants, but its impact
is mitigated by extremely efficient wet scrubbers.
No community-wide odor problems exist in the study area.
The existing wastewater treatment plants are recognized as sources
of odor nuisance to areas surrounding the plants.
The Greensboro area has a noise climate typical of simi-
lar metropolitan areas in the United States. Residential areas
are characterized by low to moderate levels permitting, in most
areas, pursuit of outdoor activites without interference from in-
truding noise. Zones of higher noise level are near major traffic
1
-------
—, \
— ________ ROCKINGHMA CO .
EXISTING SITE
FIGURE 1
2
3 45
SCALE IN MILES
STUDY AREA SHOWING DESIGNATED 201 AREA
AND EXISTiNG WAS TEWA TER TREA TMENT FACILITIES
0
‘0
I
0
-------
arteries and the airport. Noise radiated from existing wastewater
treatment plants is of a level too low to be detectable by people
living around the plants.
The topography of Guilford County is typical of the
Piedmont Plateau physiographic province in that it is gently rol-
ling in the uplands and somewhat more rugged near the major streams.
The bedrock of the county consists of igneous and metamorphic rocks
that are also typical of the Piedmont province. The bedrock is
overlain by a thick mantle of saprolite (soft, weathered bedrock)
in most of the county. The most important geologic processes are
ground-water recharge and flooding.
The soils of Guilford County comprise deep, well-horizon-
ated acid soils on the uplands and poorly-horizonated alluvial soils
along creek bottoms. A total of seven soil associations have been
recognized and mapped in the county. Nearly all of the soils are
poorly suited for septic tank use, primarily because of low permea-
bility in the subsoil horizon. All of the soils except those along
bottomlands are also poorly suited for land application of sewage
effluent.
Streams of the study area are numerous and rather small,
especially those reaches draining the immediate area of metropoli-
tan Greensboro. The 7-day, 10-year Low flows for these streams
are only a few cfs or less, although average discharges are con-
siderably larger. Two streams, North and South Buffalo Creeks,
are significantly degraded in quality by municipal and industrial
outfalls and, increasingly, non-point source pollutants in urban
land runoff. Most industrial wastewater is discharged directly
or indirectly to South Buffalo Creek. Malfunctioning septic tanks
have caused locally poor bacteriological quality in streams through-
out the area. The water supply for Greensboro is provided by a
system of small r4servoirs, north of the city, upon which urban-
ization is now encroaching.
Because of the geologic setting of Guilford County, major
regional aquifers do not exist. Shallow, low-productivity water-
table aquifers are present, however, and serve as important water
sources in rural areas. The ground water of these aquifers occurs
in pore spaces in the saprolite and in fractures in the underlying
bedrock. Recharge to the aquifers occurs in the uplands, and dis-
charge is to wells or as baseflow to the streams. The total ground
water available in the county is estimated to be about 150 MCD, but
only approximately 11 MGD is presently being used. Ground-water
quality is generally good, except for a high iron content in some
areas. Ground-water quality problems from septic tanks have been
reported in the county.
3
-------
The potential natural vegetation in the Greensboro area
is a climax hardwood forest. Man’s use of the area has resulted
in the establishment of a mixed oak-hickory-pine forest type which
is now fragmented by cultivated fields, old fields, and urban areas.
No virgin woodlands remain. About half of the total rural land
in the study area is forested with second growth woodlands in var-
ious stages of succession.
Because man’s use of the study area has fragmented the
natural vegetation, forest species have decreased while species
preferring brushy habitats have increased. Small game animals
and game birds have benefitted from fragmentation of the wood-
lands. Other game animals such as whitetail deer and wild turkey
have been pratically eliminated. Species tolerant of or espec-
ially adapted to man’s alterations in natural conditions are gen-
erally characteristic of the area’s fauna.
Aquatic plants in the Greensboro area are almost entirely
restricted to streams and lakes above the existing sewage treatment
plants. Small, localized colonies of green and blue-green algae
may be found in North and South Buffalo Creeks below the treatment
plants where suitable, stable substrates exist. Benthic inverte-
brates are most numerous and diverse in Horsepen Creek, Alamance
Creek, and Reedy Fork. Most sport fishing is restricted to Alatnance
Creek, Reedy Fork, Lake Brandt, and small farm ponds. Both North
and South Buffalo Creeks contain benthic invertebrates tolerant
of heavy pollution and very few, if any, game fish.
No virgin woodland stands remain in the study area.
Three plant species are listed as “threatened throughout” their
range in North Carolina. The southern rain orchid ( Habenaria
flava) , Nestronia ( Nestronia umbellula) , and ginseng are all moist
lowland species. None of the mammals of Guilford County are con-
sidered endangered. The Bald Eagle once nested in the area and the
Peregrine Falcone migrates through the region. Both are considered
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sharp-shinned
hawk is considered threatened and is reported to nest near Lake
Brandt. Species which are sensitive in the area because they are
relictual populations or occur at the edge of their range include
the white-crowned sparrow, crescent shiner, and an unidentified
species of freshwater clam.
b. Man-Made Environment
The EIS Study Area had 196,617 people in 1975 and will
row to 287,200 by the year 2000. This population is clustered
:.n Greensboro itself with a few small high-density settlements
n the periphery along transportation arteries. Racially, the
area is 25 percent black with 64 percent of the blacks in the
South Buffalo subbasin and 28 percent in the North Buffalo subbasin.
4
-------
The age of the population is young (median age of 27.0) relative
to the U.S. (28.1). Median income in 1970 was high relative to
both the state and the U.S.
The Greensboro area economy has grown since 1970 with
20,000 jobs created in Guilford County from 1970 to 1974. Unem-
ployment has been low in recent years (normally under 4 percent).
Manufacturing dominates the employment structure with textile
employment being conspicuously important. Employment in manu-
facturing sectors such as wholesale/retail trade and services
has grown in recent years.
As one would expect, residential land predominates
within Greensboro with commercial land uses interspersed, espec-
ially in the CBD and along major thoroughfares. Industry is
closely linked to transportation and dominates areas along high-
ways, near railroads, and close to the airport. Forests and
agriculture predominate in the periphery of the study area with
residential areas along highways and at intersections. Future
land use will feature growth all around Greensboro with no di-
rectional bias being dominant. Highway access will be an impor-
tant determinant of growth patterns.
Greensboro and Guilford County are providing police and
fire protection, health care, education, waste disposal, librar-
ies, and other public services that are essential. Wastewater
treatment is less than perfect and should be corrected by this
proposed action.
Greensboro and Guilford County are financially sound
governments paying for their needs with very little bonding
required.
The Guilford County area has a rich cultural heritage
which is being enhanced and protected. National Register histor-
ic sites are located in Greensboro and many buildings and areas
of historic value have been identified. Also, the area may have
archaeological resources, but they are not well known at this
time. Recreational resources are scattered throughout the city
and county.
As a focal point of North Carolina highways, Greens-
boro’s major thoroughfares are heavily used. Thoroughfares are
planned to relieve excess traffic loads as they develop, espec-
ially in peripheral areas.
Duke Power Company will be able to meet the area’s
energy requirements through the year 2000 as long as coal and
nuclear power are available. No major natural resources are
being extracted in the study area other than rock and gravel.
5
-------
2. System Alternatives
To satisfy: a 20-year growth projection requiring 36
million gallons per day (MCD) of treated wastewater, 124 alterna- .
tives entailing consideration of 14 different treatment plant sites
located in five major watersheds were identified. These alterna-
tives were tested in a multilevel screening process involving
environmental, engineering, legal and cost constraints, and inputs
from the Greensboro EIS Advisory Committee. With this process,
the alternatives were reduced to a total number of seven, includ-
ing No Action, for evaluation in this Draft EIS. All alternatives
considered require the upgrading of the existing North Buffalo
treatment plant (NB?) to provide a tertiary level of treatment
at 16.0 MGD. All alternatives, except No Action and Alternative
6, call for a 20 MCD plant with tertiary treatment on either South
Buffalo or Buffalo Creeks. The alternatives receiving detailed
environmental, cost, and engineering analysis are summarized be-
low. The alternatives are depicted graphically in Figures 2 and 3.
Alternative 1 - NB? plus upgrading and expanding exist-
ing South Buffalo Plant (SBP); construction of an outfall/force
main from existing SB? to Highway 70.
Alternative 2 - NBP plus abandonment of SBP and construc-
tion of a new plant 14,000 feet downstream from the SB?; construc-
tion of an outfall sewer from SBP to the new plant location; con-
struct an outfall/force mair from the new plant site to Highway 70.
Alternative 3 - NBP plus abandonment of SBP; construction
of a new pLant 26,000 feet downstream of SBP; construct an outfall
sewer from SBP to new plant site.
Alternative 4 - NBP plus abandonment of SBP; construction
of a new p [ ant on Wuffalo Creek 46,500 feet downstream of SBP; con-
struction of an outfall sewer from SBP to new site.
Alternative 5 - NB? plus abandonment of SBP; construction
of a new plant 66,500 feet downstream on Buffalo Creek; construction
of an outfall sewer from SB? to new site; construction of an outfall
sewer from new site to Reedy Fork Creek.
Alternative 6 - NB? plus expand NBP to 25 MGD in 1987;
upgrading SBP to tertiary level of treatment at 11.0 MGD; construc-
tion of a pump station and force main from SBP to NBP to transfer
9.0 MCD; construction of an outfall/force main from SBP to Highway
70.
Alternative 7 - No Action; upgrade NB? and SBP to terti-
ary level of treatment at existing capacity; provide septic tanks
to additional households not provided sewer service.
6
-------
FIGURE 2
-------
Co
-------
3. Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action for wastewater treatment facility
improvements for Greensboro-Guilford County is Alternative 3 and
is comprised of:
• making maximum use of NBP by upgrading to provide
tertiary treatment at 16 MGD
• abandonment of SBP
• construction of a new $1,400,000 plant on South Buffalo
Creek about 26,000 feet downstream of SBP to provide
tertiary treatment at 20 MGD
• construction of a new sixty-inch outfall sewer from
SBP to the new plant site.
4. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
a. Natural Environment
Direct air quality impacts of the proposed action will
:occur during the construction and operation phases. During con-
struction at the new South Buffalo site, appreciable fugitive
dust may be generated. These emissions should have a localized
impact. Operational impacts include combustion products from
gas and diesel-fueled engines used to produce power and also from
the sludge incinerator. The incinerator emissions will be minor
because of adequate control equipment. Secondary impacts will
occur due to growth patterns in the study area. More human activ-
ity will bring about more air pollutant emissions. It is not
known whether this will cause any future violations of air quality
standards.
Odor impacts will occur due to the upgrading and
expansion of existing wastewater treatment plants. Replacement
of the existing South Buffalo plant with a new plant downstream
will have a beneficial impact to the population surrounding the
existing plant. No adverse impact should occur from the new
plant due to the low population density within one mile of the
site. No substantial reduction in odor impacts will result
from the proposed upgrading of the North Buffalo plant.
Noise generated by construction of the South Buffalo
interàeptOr may cause disturbance to outdoor activities for per-
sons living or active within 2000 feet of the construction activ-
ity. Any one area is not expected to be affected for a period
of more than one month. Construction and upgrading of the treat-
ment plants is not expected to generate adverse reaction to noise.
Noise from operation of the South Buffalo plant will not cause
9
-------
an adverse impact on area residents. Operation of the North Buf—
falo plant may cause slight annoyance to people engaged in outdoor
activities especialLy during nighttime hours.
The primary geology-related environmental effect will
be the blasting that will likely be necessary both for the new
sewage treatment plant and for the new pipeline that will connect
the new plant with the existing South Buffalo plant.
Two soils-related impacts will result from the proposed
action. Approximately 40 acres of moderately productive soil
will be permanently removed from cultivation by the new treatment
plant, and the moderately high erosion susceptibility of the soil
will probably result in considerable erosion at the site during
construction.
The direct effects of the proposed action on the water
regime are small. Streamfiow, especially dry weather flows, will
gradually increase below the outfalls as a result of increased
municipal wastewater and will promote a small incremental amount of
continuing streambank erosion and siltation. Sewer emplacement
is likely to be more consequential for stream siltation, but this
impact will, be temporary and minor. Removal of the existing muni-
cipal wastewater discharge for five miles of South Buffalo Creek
will significantly improve water quality in that reach only if
upstream industrial discharges are removed or undergo better treat-
ment. Enforcement procedures are available and in effect at both
state and federal levels to ensure that unacceptable discharges
will be eliminated. The oxygen-demanding pollutant loads to i orth
and South Buffalo Creeks will be substantially reduced, by 45 and
34 percent respectively, and the times that these streams experience
poor quality conditions will be decreased. However, the water qual—
ity of the hydrologic system will remain in a rather highly stressed
state, due to the influence of industry and urban land runoff. Per-
haps only in Reedy Fork and more downstream areas will the stream
health show substantial improvement as a result of the proposed
wastewater treatment facilities. Increased assimilative capacity
provided by the design wastewater discharge in these lower stream
reaches sIx uld be beneficial to water quality during lower flows.
No downstream water supply will depend upon disinfection at the
proposed treatment plants for bacteriological quality although pub-
lic-health hazards of the malfunctioning septic tanks in these
watersheds is expected to continue in the long-term. Discharge of
nutrients and residual chlorine should not impose an ecological
burden. The chlorination process, however, could conceivably create
very low concentrations of carcinogenic, mutagenic or otherwise toxic
compounds in the effluent as a result of chemical reactions with the
variety of organics in these municipal wastewaters. This is not a
certain effect and has not been documented at the existing plants,
but should be considered as a possible direct impact.
10
-------
The indirect effects of increased urbanization on water
quantity and quality are considered more significant than the di-
rect effects. The major hydraulic effects that are likely to be
experienced are substantially higher peak flows on the streams
draining the urbanized area and concomitant more frequent flooding
in areas downstream. An indirect result of this increased flood-
ing is likely to be increased amounts of channelization and other
hydrographic modifications that can be unaesthetic, degrade water
quality, and destroy riparian habitat unless carefully planned.
The continued urbanization of the region will also be responsible
in large part for continuing poor quality water in the streams of
the Greensboro area. The point-source discharges apparently are
not capable, within the existing technological and regulatory frame-
work, of creating a sufficiently large buffer in stream quality to
accommodate the adverse effects of urban non-point source pollu-
tants without experiencing water quality degradation. A monitor-
ing and modeling program to quantify urban runoff effects on stream
and reservoir quality in the Greensboro area is currently underway,
pursuant to this EIS, and the results and recommendations for fur-
ther action will be available during the preparation of the Final
EIS.
The most important environmental effect of the proposed
action on ground water will be the very remote hazard posed for
shallow ground water at the site of the new treatment plant. Leak-
age and seepage from the ponds and other facilities may reach the
water table without the benefit of natural renovation, particularly
where the facilities are excavated below the soil zone.
The environmental effects of the proposed action On
terrestrial flora and fauna will be largely temporary. Distur-
bance of plant and animal communities by construction and oper-
ation of the proposed facilities will not destroy critical
habitat or deleterious numbers of wildlife. No endangered
terrestrial species are known to inhabit the proposed construc-
tion sites. Indirect effects of the proposed action will result
in an increase of the habitat fragmentation already observed in
the area.
The effect of the constructIon and operation of the
new facilities on aquatic plants and animals will be minimal.
Existing aquatic habitat quality in North and South Buffalo
Creeks is marginal. Therefore, the proposed action will have
essentially no adverse impact and may produce some beneficial
effects. Increases in flow will be similar to historical
increases and should not produce any adverse effects not
already observed. Secondary effects on the aquatic environment
will stem from increases in urban runoff to both streams. No
endangered aquatic species are known to inhabit affected stream
segments.
11
-------
b. Man-Made Environment
Very minimal changes in population size, characteristics,
or distribution in the area will occur as a direct result of the
proposed action. The economy will benefit by approximately $33
million as a result of construction costs. As an indirect result,
the EIS Study Area will be able to accommodate projected population,
industrial, and commercial expansion without the environmental and
economic costs associated with sprawl which growth on septic tanks
and package treatment plants would encourage.
The land lost to its existing use as a direct result of
the proposed action is relatively unproductive in economic terms.
The effect on neighboring land use will be minimal due to the buffer
to be established. Beneficial effects are related to the closing
of the existing South Buffalo plant, the cessation of low density
sprawl based upon the use of package plants and septic tanks, and
the implementation of controlled growth east of Greensboro.
The direct impact of the proposed action on community
facilities is anticipated to be very small. Indirect impacts will
occur as a result of population growth within the study area but
will be spread over the planning period. Proper planning and zoning
by the city and county will help provide additional community facil-
ities and services as needs for them increase during the planning
period.
Sewage treatment costs will increase to pay for the pro-
posed action. The increase will be small and dispersed throughout
the community. The increase should not cause undue hardship for
residential customers.
Direct effects on historical or archaeological resources
may exist. No presently known historical or archaeological resources
will be affected by the project. The State of North Carolina will
make the final determination. An archaeological survey will be
performed prior to the Final EIS to determine the presence or ab-
sence of any unknown resources which might be affected. Indirect
adverse effects are limited to an eventual need for expanded re-
creational resources as the growing population overuses those which
now exist.
Huffine Mill Road will experience significantly heavier
traffic during construction. The entire ground transportation sys-
tem in the 201 Study Area will have to expand peripherally to accom-
nxdate projected growth. No major adverse impacts, either direct
or indirect, have been identified.
Neither direct nor indirect adverse effects on resource
use or supply can be attributed to the proposed action.
12
-------
5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigating Measures
To reduce the amount of dust generated from construction
at the new South Buffalo plant site, water or oil may be applied to
unpaved access roads and other potential areas of dust generation.
These measures can reduce dust approximately 50 percent.
Approved pre-treatment of sewage and proper operation
and maintenance of equipment at both facilities can mitigate odor
impacts. At both the North Buffalo Creek facility and the new
South Buffalo plant, covers and gas scrubbers on the primary sedi-
mentation tanks and sludge thickeners and gas scrubbers on the
vacuum filters and anaerobic digesters, as appropriate, can be used
to minimize odors. Additionally, pre-chiorination of raw waste-
water at the existing South Buffalo plant can reduce the possibil-
ity of odors associated with septic sewage arriving at the new
plant.
Measures designed to mitigate adverse noise impacts in-
clude properly maintaining and efficiently muffling dozers, back-
hoes, and cranes and reducing rock drill noise by acoustic mufflers,
as well as enclosure of motors, pumps, and control valves and acous-
tical lagging of aboveground high pressure piping.
The blasting that will be required for construction of
some of the facilities will be of short duration, so no mitigating
measures will be required. The geology of the area is generally
conducive to urbanization, so no mitigative measures are recommended.
Preventive measures for soil erosion and the resulting
sediment generation at construction sites should be instituted as
construction proceeds. These measures are summarized in the water
quality section of this Summary. A possible mitigative measure for
the impact of removing the 40 acres from potential cropland use,
would be to put presently nonproductive land (such as a forested
area) into production. However, the annual changes in agricultur-
al land use in the region probably overshadow the localized effect
of the loss of 40 acres. This mitigative measure is thus unneces-
sary.
The secondary effects of increased flooding as a result
of urbanization can be appreciably reduced by adopting a comprehen-
sive storm water management program that is integrated with commun-
ity land use planning and engineering constraints. Reduction of
impervious areas through lot size control and use of permeable
pavements and structural measures to offset decreased lag times,
such as detention ponds, natural and artificial depression storage,
and effective routing of storm water should be considered in various
critical areas.
13
-------
All construction sites will be required to implement ero
sion and sediment: control plans to mitigate or eliminate stream
siltation. Other direct and indirect water quality effects can be
mitigated by implementing a timely, adequate monitoring program
for both effluents and receiving streams, in order to identify
areas requiring preventive measures. Such measures are likely
to include actions to reduce the amount and variety of contamin-
ants accumulated on impervious surfaces, to reduce overland and
channel flow velocities, and to encourage proper septic tank sit-
ing and maintenance.
A mitigative measure for the potential reduction of
ground-water quality would be to ensure prevention of leakage
from any of the new treatment plant facilities or the associated
pipeline. Monitor wells, particularly between the new treatment
plant and South Buffalo Creek, could be installed to detect ground
water pollution, if it occurs, at an early stage.
Because of the historical use by man of both terrestrial
and aquatic communities in the Greensboro area, no lasting adverse
impacts on area biota are anticipated. Secondary environmental
effects caused by urbanization would occur with or without the
proposed action.
b. Man-Made Environment
Adverse impacts directly related to the proposed action
are limited to traffic increases on Huff ins Mill Road and minor
land use conflicts at the new South Buffalo plant. The former
problem is relieved by adequate scheduling while the latter is
diminished by a large buffer zone.
Indirect adverse effects related to population growth
may be discernible in undesirable spatial patterns of residential
development or in overburdened community services and facilities.
For both potentialities, farsighted planning by the county and
city governments will minimize the effects.
14
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The decision-making process described in this environ-
mental impact statement is founded on both legislative and local
historical bases. A summary of this framework in which the assess-
ment has been conducted serves as the introduction for the docu-
ment.
A. Legislative and Legal Aspects
All agencies of the federal government and the State of
North Carolina are required by law* to prepare a detailed environ-
mental impact statement (EIS) for major legislative and adminis-
trative actions significantly affecting the quality of human en-
vironment. The objectives of implementing the EIS process are to
(1) build into the decision-making process an appropriate and
careful consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions, (2) explain potential environmental effects of proposed
actions and their alternatives for public understanding, (3) avoid
or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions, and (4) restore
or enhance the quality of the environment as much as possible.
The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources in concert with the Environmental Protection Agency
determined that the issuance of federal and state funds for im-
provements to the Greensboro, North Carolina wastewater treatment
facilities constitutes a major action potentially significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. Consequently,
decisions were made to prepare a joint federal-state EIS, the
Notice of Intent for which was released on April 5, 1976.
*Natjoflal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 16 U.S.C. 4321
et sec [ ., as implemented by Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970,
t e Council. on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines of August 1,
1973; North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (1971 C.
1203, S.l), N. C. Gen. Stat. Ch; 113A (Cum. Supp. 1973).
-I.
a. —
-------
Explicitly included in the EIS for the Greensboro 201 area as a
result of a legal agreement were specific considerations of the
environmental acceptability of the Horsepen Creek interceptor.
This issue will be dealt with separately in a supplement to the
Draft EIS.
B. Local Perspectives
Greensboro, North Carolina, is located within the head-
waters of tributaries of the Deep and Haw Rivers, generally drain-
ing to the east. While these local streams are small, they are
presently bearing a substantial pollutant load imposed by Greens-
boro’s significantlY growing population and expanding industrial
base and by its urbanizing land area. Although a restricted but
underdeveloped ground water resource is available, especially for
rural use, most of the population in the area depends upon surface
water supplies, largely provided by a reservoir system just north
of the city. The safe yield of these reservoirs is not large
and will be strained to meet water demands during critical periods
within the timeframe of this assessment. In addition, the quality
of the water supply reservoirs is threatened by increasing urban
and suburban development within their watersheds, particularly
drainage areas west and north of the Greensboro central business
district.
Greensboro is currently served by two wasteWater treat-
ment plants located on North and South Buffalo Creeks which drain
most of the urban area. Neither plant is now maintaining the
water quality of the receiving Stream, although neither is cur-
rently hydraulically overloaded. The South Buffalo platit has
about the same hydraulic loading as the other plant but receives
most of the industrial wastewater discharged to the municipal
system. Most of the direct industrial discharge to surface streams
also enters South Buffalo Creek. Both of these streams are now
grossly polluted from industrial and especially municipal discharges.
-------
The City of Greensboro, North Carolina, therefore, is
applying for federal EPA and state funds to expand and improve
its wastewater treatment facilities. The principal objectives
of this proposal are (1) to provide adequate, timely wastewater
treatment facilities for the city and its service area, (2) to
achieve promulgated state and federal water quality stipulations,
and (3) to accommodate both domestic and industrial growth in
an orderly, beneficial fashion.
More than one hundred wastewater treatment alternatives
for the attainment of these objectives were initially considered.
These were mutually developed by EPA, the State of North Carolina,
the City of Greensboro, their consultants, and interested citizens.
These options were progressively screened by applying increasingly
more stringent environmental and economic selection criteria. Seven
selected alternatives, including the No Action alternative, were
evaluated in detail as to their environmental acceptability and cost,
and one alternative comprising an environmentally sound, implemen-
table, and cost-effective option was selected as the proposed action.
The proposed action considered in this Draft EIS comprises an up-
grading of the North Buffalo plant at its present design capacity
of 16 MGD, construction of a new wastewater treatment plant on
South Buffalo Creek about five miles downstream of the existing
plant on that stream, abandonment of the existing South Buffalo
plant, and expanded wastewater treatment transmission lines. The
general locations of these proposed facilities are presented in
Figure 2, Alternative 3, in the preceding Summary.
The total project costs for the alternative, including
treatment plants, major interceptors and collectors, pumping sta-
tions, force mains, engineering, legal, and contingency services,
and purchase of additional land is approximately $32,100,000.
Nearly all of this amount, $32,000,000, is eligible for funding
assistance by EPA and state grants. EPA will provide 75 percent,
1-3
-------
of $24,000,000, and the State of North Carolina may contribute
$4,000,000, or 12.5%, for this sytem. The city’s share will,
therefore, be approximately 4,l00,000 in capital Costs. The
total user cost, including amortized capital, operating, and
maintenance expenses, will be $37.00 per year per user in the
design year of 2000.
C. Project History
A chronological presentation of the project history and
major events leading to the proposed action is provided below:
October, 1969 Greensboro retained Hazen and Sawyer Envir-
onmental Engineers to review needs at South
Buffalo and the overall waste treatment
program.
April, 1970 Report received from engineers on South Buf-
falo Creek and treatment plant.
October, 1970 Greensboro filed application for upgrading
South Buffalo under PL 660. South Buffalo
site approved for upgrading. Project cer-
tified for priority.
November, 1970 Greensboro voters passed $3,500,000 bond
issue to upgrade outfalls, upgrade South
Buffalo, and construct an outfall down
South Buffalo Creek to confluence with
North Buffalo Creek.
December, 1970 Engineers engaged to design South Buffalo
improvements. City was notified that South
Buffalo improvements were endorsed by the
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments.
February, 1971 Greensboro receives offer of Federal Grant
from EPA.
March, 1971 State upgraded stream requiring greater
treatment.
August, 1971 Engineers directed to look at overall waste
treatment picture in light of pending Clean
Water Bond Act scheduled for referendum in 1972,
1-4
-------
October, 1971 Phosphorus removal studies contracted.
December, 1971 Engineers commissioned to prepare a report
on Metro Sewage System. Construction schedule
adopted by City Council.
January, 1972 Application filed with Office of Water and
Air Resources (OWAR) for Metro Plant, South
Buffalo outfall, and improvements to North
Buffalo.
March, 1972 Report on Metro Sewage System submitted.
The report proposed upgrading of North Buffalo,
upgrading of South Buffalo, construction of
outfall down South Buffalo Creek, and con-
struction of a new pollution control plant.
April, 1972 Metro Project given favorable review by
Piedmond Triad Council.
May, 1972 State Clean Water Bond Act passed.
July, 1972 EPA questions advisability of keeping South
Buffalo Plant with advent of new Metro Plant.
Requested economic evaluation of three plant
proposal.
August, 1972 Site inspection of the South Buffalo Plant
made by OWAR. State, federal, and city
officials met in Raleigh to discuss the
South Buffalo and Metro Plants.
September, 1972 Greensboro City Council requested increase
in grant for South Buffalo from 33% to 55%.
EPA advised Greensboro not to proceed with
the improvements at South Buffalo until they
could evaluate the economics of the three
plant concept.
October, 1972 Greensboro City Council adopted new time
schedule for waste treatment improvements
due to delays. EPA withdrew objections
on the three plant concept and authorized
funding for the project. Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
passed by Congress. The elements of this
required that a Facilities Report, Environ-
mental Assessment, and an Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis be prepared.
1-5
-------
January, 1973 Bids on work for South Buffalo received.
Pilot work began to determine best practical
technology for design of Metro Plant.
March, 1973 Contracts awarded for South Buffalo improve-
ments.
April, 1973 Site at confluence of Buffalo Creeks approved
by OWAR.
June, 1973 Informational meeting held at Piedmont Triad
Council of Governments in which McLeansville
residents voiced objections to site. At
this meeting it was publically proposed that
a site on Alamance Creek be selected or that
the present site at South Buffalo be drastically
expanded. Engineers directed to prepare Facil-
ities Report, Environmental Assessment, and
Infiltration/Inflow Analysis as per EPA guide-
lines of PL 95—500 and to consider all possible
alternatives.
July, 1973 City requested delineation of 201 Planning
Area from OWAR.
November, 1973 Greensboro and Guilford County Governments
passed resolution making City responsible for
treatment of waste but put all facility plan—
fling on a joint and cooperative basis. Metro
Greensboro given number one priority in state.
January, 1974 Copies of Facilities Report, Environmental
Assessment, and Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
distributed to EPA, cMAR, units of local govern-
ment, and other interest groups and individuals.
February, 1974 Public Hearing on Metro held. OWAR encouraged
city to proceed on 201 plan.
June, 1974 City submitted Facilities Report to OWAR.
August, 1974 Representatives of McLeansville proposed
Ivey Dairy Farm as alternate site. City
directed consultants to study newly proposed
site and also two sites just upstream of the
confluence.
January, 1975 Division of Environmental Management issued
public notice of intent to issue permit for
Metro site.
1-6
-------
March, 1975 Permit to discharge from Metro site issued.
April, 1975 Fifth Public Hearing held on Metro.
September, 1975 Conference held in Raleigh on 201 Facilities
Report.
October, 1975 Conference held in Raleigh on 201 Facilities
Report.
April, 1976 Notice of Intent to prepare a joint federal—
state EIS for Greensboro’s wastewater man-
agement system.
September, 1976 Radian Corporation was contracted to assist
EPA and the State of North Carolina in pre-
paration of the EIS
November, 1976 Public meeting was held to present purpose
of EIS and obtain public Input.
November—June, 1977 IdentIfication of viable wastewater manage-
ment alternatives; screening most promising
systems with environmental, cost, legal,
social, and engineering constraints.
June, 1977 Selection of proposed action.
1-7
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING EVIRONMENT
The total environment is a dynamic and interlocking
system which may be broken arbitrarily into logical divisions
for examination and analysis. It must be borne in mind, however,
that the division being investigated is not functionally sep-
arated from the total environment.
The existing environment of the study area is divided
into the natural environment and the man-made environment. The
natural environment may be regarded as those things which are
external to, but which influence and are influenced by, man’s
social structures. Conversely, the man-made environment may be
regarded as those things present in the environment which are
the products of man and hIs social structures, for example, de-
mography, economics, and economic geography.
The existing environment has been described in this
chapter primarily at a regional level, to set the context for
interdisciplinary evaluation of alternative treatment systems.
Some site-specific detail has been added where possible and ap-
propriate for the environmental assessment. The level of detail
in the Draft EIS is limited both by the amount of reliable infor-
mation that exists and by the relevancy of inclusion to the im-
pact evaluations. Part of the additional information that has
been considered in the professional evaluation but which has
been judged too periph ra1 or too detailed for general consider-
ation is included in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
-------
A. Natural Environment
1. Physical Components
a. Climate
Greensboro, in Guilford County, is located in the gently
rolling northern Piedmont section of North Carolina. The climate
of the area can be typed as humid subtropical. This type of cli-
mate is characterized by relatively short, mild winters and long,
hot surmners. Rainfall is abundant, but only a few snowfalls oc-
cur each winter (CL-093).
(1) Temperature
The average annual temperature at Greensboro is 58.2°F,
with an average daily maximum temperature of 69.3°F and an aver-
age daily minimum temperature of 47.0°F.
The warmest month during the year at Greensboro is July,
which has an average temperature of 77.3°F. Summer temperatures
of 90 0 F or above are not unusual during the period from June
through August. A few days of 90°F temperatures may also occur
during April, May, and September.
The coolest-month of the year at Greensboro is January,
which has an average temperature of 39.7°F. Minimum temperatures
of 32°F or below are quite common during winter months and also
may occur during late fall and early spring.
(2) Precipitation
The average annual precipitation at Greensboro is 42.16
inches. The wettest month during the year is July, when an average
11-2
-------
of 4.79 inches of precipitation is recorded. The driest month
is November, when the monthly average precipitation is 2.68 inches.
During the summer months, precipitation occurs primarily as scat-
tered showers and thundershowers. During the winter months, how-
ever, precipitation occurs primarily as steady, widespread rain-
fall. Therefore, precipitation amounts during the winter are more
evenly distributed than during the summer.
The average annual snowfall in the Greensboro area is
8.8 inches, but the total during any given year is quite variable.
The Greensboro area experiences an average of only two days during
the year with one inch or more of snowfall or ice (NA-166).
(3) Relative Flumidiçy
Relative humidities in the Greensboro area average about
71 percent during the year. The most humid months are July and
August, both of which average about 79 percent relative humidity.
The driest month is March, with an average relative humidity of
61 percent. Generally, relative humidities are highest near sun-
rise, when the coolest temperatures occur. Conversely, relative
humidities are generally lowest in the early afternoon, when tem-
peratures are highest (NA-166).
(4) Heavy Fog
Heavy fog (which restricts visibility to ¼-mile or less)
occurs on an average of thirty-one days during the year. The fre-
quency of occurrence of heavy fog is slightly higher during the
winter months than during the rest of the year (NA-l66).
(5) Wind Speed and Direction
On an annual basis, wind speeds in the Greensboro area
average 7.8 mph. The windiest month during the year is March,
11-3
-------
when the average wind speed is 9.4 mpg. The least windy month
is August, when the average wind speed is 6.4 mph (NA-166). The
annual wind rose for Greensboro is presented in Figure 11-i. The
seasonality effects are weak (NA-274).
(6) Catastrophic Meteorological Events
On the average, forty-seven thunderstorm days occur dur-
ing the year in the Greensboro area. The season for thunderstorms
is May through August, although a few may occur during the other
months of the year (NA-166). About two percent of the thunderstorms
that occur in the area produce hail which reaches the ground (FL-063).
North Carolina is outside the principal tornado zone of
the United States. The state experiences, on the average, only
three tornadoes annually, most of which occur in the southern Pied-
mont region. Tornadoes most often occur in North Carolina during
March, April, and May, although they may occur during any month of
the year (CL-093).
Because of its distance from the Atlantic Coast, the
northern Piedmont area of North Carolina is affected primarily
by rainfall associated with tropical storms that achieve landfall
along the North Carolina coast, on an average of about once every
eight years. Hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or greater ) reach the
northern coastline on an average of about once every ten years,
while “great hurricanes” (winds of 125 mph or higher) move inland
approximately once every thirty-five years (SI-hO).
“Extreme mile” winds are the strongest sustained one-
minute wind speeds that can be expected to occur in a region within
a certain recurrence interval, at a standard height of thirty feet
above the ground. In the Greensboro area, “extreme mile” winds of
50 mph primarily caused by localized severe thunderstorms occur
11-4
-------
Ij\L SF -
( nr ’
. 1
IT
‘.- .-
Z- 6
6-1.0
1C—1.6
_____ 16—22
____ GT 21
Annual Stability
Class Distribution
A = O.8l7
3 = 7.4470
C
D 1
D 2
E+F
zc :1 : - & e6
= 12.857
= 2l.957
= 18.54%
= 38.41%
FIGURE lI-i
ANNUAL WIND ROSE
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
11-5
1965-1974
p.,
.4
I I
rç
7.87
3.34
P
p
-
I -
Ox
107.
Source: NA-274
-------
at mean intervals of two years, and 80 mph winds of 100-year in-
tervals. “Extreme mile” winds for various recurrence intervals
are shown in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
Most flooding which occurs in the Greensboro area is
localized and occurs with thunderstorm activity. Flash flooding
of small streams is not uncommon with the heavier, slow-moving
thunderstorms. The most extensive and damaging floods occur in
association with tropical storms (NA-166).
(7) Meteorological Potential for Pollutant Dispersion
and Air Stagnation
North Carolina is located in a section of the country
which often experiences poor dispersion conditions due to a high
frequency of low-level inversions and a tendency for high pres-
sure systems (anticyclones) to either move slowly across or stag-
nate in the area. These conditions limit vertical mixing of at-
mospheric pollutants, which may result in significantly higher
than average ambient concentrations of some pollutants.
b. Odor
This section describes odors perceived by the popula-
tion in the study area. Most airborne odors are caused by some
type of volatile organic or inorganic compound such as ammonia,
hydrogen sulfide, etc. The perception of odors can be described
quantitatively and qualitatively. Qualitative descriptions such
as rancid, rotten egg, fishy, etc. are subjective.
Quantitatively, odors can be described by the concentra-
tion of the odor in the air. Im ambient air, combinations of
11-6
-------
various odors make identification and quantification difficult
(CH-196). In the Greensboro study area, no quantitative odor
data were available.
An alternative method of analysis involves the subjec-
tive community perception of odors in ambient air. No existing
studies, such as a community odor survey, were located for the
Greensboro study area. However, several sources of odor were
noted during contacts with knowledgable local officials. In addi-
tion, tours of both existing sewage treatment plants were taken.
David Ligon, Regional Air. Quality Engineer, Winston-Salem, mentioned
three industrial sources of odor in the study area. These were
a fertilizer plant, a chemical plant, and rendering plant. The
conditions which led to odor emissions at these plants have been
improved, and odors have been reduced and/or eliminated (LI-168).
Personnel of the Guilford County Public Health Department were
also contacted regarding records of odor complaints; none were
available (BR-359)
The existing municipal wastewater treatment plants are
acknowledged to be sources of odor in the community. For a dis-
cussion of the processes which are used at these two plants, see
Section II.B.8. The most significant parameter which influences
community impact of odors emanating from the plants is location.
The South Buffalo plant is located near a residential area (RA-
R-206). The plant has- caused some nuisance to citizens in that
area. According to the Greensboro Public Works Department, no
odor complaint records are kept by the city. Treatment plant
operators attempt to reduce odors at the plant in response to
complaints. The North Buffalo plant is not as close to a residen-
tial area as is the South Buffalo plant (RA-R-406). However,
the North Buffalo plant has received complaints from a shopping
center across North Buffalo Creek. Odor masking agents are em-
ployed to reduce odors at the North Buffalo plant. At the South
Buf alo plant, gases off the primary tanks are collected and
11-7
-------
scrubbed with permanganate to reduce odors (BR-359). Odors at
these plants are typical of inadequate treatment plants. Com-
pounds such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and various organics
are emitted from treatment plants. Depending on the observer,
these odors can be described as rancid, fecal, sour, etc. (RA-340).
c. Air Quality
This section presents a description of existing air
quality in the Greensboro study area. Ambient air quality will
be characterized on the basis of air sampling data from monitoring
stations in Guilford County. Air pollutant emissions sources will
also be presented for the county.
Ambient Air Quality
Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina is in the
Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). In 1972
this AQCR was assigned air pollutant priorities for the develop-
ment and evaluation of the state implementation plan to achieve
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). These pri-
orities were based on existing air quality where known, or es-
timates. The AQCR was designated priority I for total suspended
particulates (TSP), III for sulfur dioxide, III for nitrogen di-
oxide, III for carbon monoxide, and III for oxidants (hydrocarbons)
Priority I regions had air quality for that pollutant generally
above the national primary standards; priority III areas had air
quality generally below national secondary standards (see RA-R-
406). The State of North Carolina has adopted standards identical
to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NO-112).
11-8
-------
Recent ambient air levels have been measured for
the Greensboro area. Air monitoring data have been collected
for total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
dioxide. Annual averages for the three pollutants measured
are presented in Table 11-1. See Figure 11-2 for locations
of the three monitoring sites. Measured levels of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen dioxide are better than the standards. Although
two sites had previously experienced violations of the TSP stan-
dard, trends have been good. In 1975, no violations of the
annual primary standard occurred. In addition to the annual
averages presented in Table Il-i, 24-hour samples must not have
violations. In 1975, the monitor at the Greensboro City Garage
showed a violation by TSP because the maximum and second maxi-
mum readings were 268 and 261 pg/rn 3 , respectively. The State
of North Carolina has determined that this site is not representa-
tive. Sources of fugitive dust neighboring the site are thought
to have caused the violation. The state has recommended that
the city garage data not be used to assess the attainment of the
NAAQS (RO-285).
Partly because of the above violations and because of
anticipated growth, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
designated Guilford County to be the Greensboro Air Quality Main-
tenance Area for particulates (40 FR 18735, April 29, 1975) . This
requires that an analysis be performed to determine what problems,
if any, could be anticipated in future air quality up to 1985.
The study has had the following results. Using a baseline study
year of 1973, projections of emission sources were made for 1975,
1980, and 1985. The emissions data were then used as input to a
computer model to project ambient air levels. The results were
inconsistent. The predictions for 1975 showed that levels of TSP
should increase; in actuality, levels decreased in 1974 and 1975
(Table 11-1). The study is currently being reviewed (EN-485).
11-9
-------
TABLE 11-1
MEASURED AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
___________________________ Annual Average SO 2 (pg/m 3 )**
1972 1973 1974 1975 Standard 1972 1973 1974 1975 Standard
85 94 90 73 75 —— —— —— —— 80
104 91 84 59 75 6 11 16 11 80
55 47 48 49 75 —— —— —— —— 80
18 39 60 36 100
*Ceometrjc Mean
**Arjthmetjc Mean
***Since the federal reference method for this pollutant is under revision,
measured values cannot be compared to the standard.
Site
Annual Average TSP (pg/m 3 )*
002, City Garage
003, Davie Street
and Mebane Road
010, Swing Road
Annual Average NO 2 (pg/m 3 )***
1972 1973 1974 1975 Standard
—— —— —- 100
—- —- -— —— 100
Source: R0—285
-------
— ________ — ROCKINGHAM CO . — _______ _______ ______ ______ ______
SCALE IN MILES
MONITORING SITE
FIGURE 11-2
GREENSBORO AMBIENT AIR MONITORING SITES
a
4
5 0
-------
Emission Sources
Guilford County has a variety of sources of air pollu-
tant emissions. Industrial sources are wood, paper, textiles,
and chemical industries. Other sources such as highway vehicles
also contribute significant tonnages of air pollutants. Unpaved
roads have been shown to contribute large amounts of dust in the
more rural areas of the county (EN-485). The State of North
Carolina has compiled inventories of the various emission sources
in the county. These data have been compiled and are presented
in Table 11-2. Point sources are currently defined as any sta-
tionary source which if uncontrolled would emit 100 tons per
year of any criteria pollutant. Most point sources are indus-
tries. Area sources are generally smaller, more distributed
sources. The data in Table 11-2 were compiled at different times.
Point source information is updated annually. The area source
TSP inventory has been updated in conjunction with the previously
mentioned AQMA analysis. A more detailed suimnary of TSP area
sources is presented in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-
406). Vehicular travel on paved and unpaved roads is estimated
to have the largest emissions (EN-485).
d. Noise
Sound level measurements within and near the North Buf-
falo and South Buffalo sewage treatment plants indicate that their
noise fields do not significantly affect the surrounding residen-
tial neighborhoods. Although houses are located within 1000 feet
of both plants, the sound is well attenuated by dens.e vegetation
and land contours. Plant noise at neighboring homesites is inaud-
ible or at low levels for which no adverse reaction from the com-
munity should be expected.
11-12
-------
TABLE 11-2
AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
TSP SO 2 CO EC NO
x
I. Fuel Combustion— — —
Stationary Sources
A. Area Sources 490 1,649 388 178 2,594
B. Point Sources 907 2,114 62 64 1,050
Total 1,397 3,763 450 242 3,644
II. Process Losses
A. Area Sources 125
B. Point Sources
1. Chemical 30 0 0 0 0
2. Food/Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
3. Metallurgical 40 7 36 214 11
4. Mineral Products 1,363 0 0 0 328
5. Petroleum Storage 0 0 0 26,034 0
6. Wood Products 108 - 0 41 0
Total 1,541 7 36 30,265 339
III. Solid Waste Disposal
A. Point Sources 0 0 0 0 0
B. Area Sources 91 8 34 11 9
Total 91 8 34 11 9
IV. Fuel Combustion—
Mobile Area 1,321 870 147,776 21,584 19,590
V. Dust Sources—Area 34,562 0 0 0 0
Vt. Miscellaneous Area Sources 22 0 208 69 7
VII. Grand Totals
A. Point Sources 2,448 2,121 98 27,158 1,389
B. Area Sources 36,611 2,527 l48, 06 25,013 22,200
Total 39,059 4,648 148,504 52,171 23,589
NOTE: TSP area source emissions are respresentative of 1975. TSP point
source and other pollutant emissions are representative of 1972.
Source: N0—113, EN—485
11-13
-------
The measured sound levels for the North Buffalo STP
are listed in Table 11-3. The primary acoustic sources are the
pumps and compressors and the vacuum filters. The Ldfl values
in the table assume the noise level is constant throughout the
24-hour measurement period.
TABLE 11—3
MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT NORTU BUFFALO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Measurement Level
Site No. (dBA) Ld Comments
1 50 56 Near office
2 59 65 Splashing and aeration
3 52 68 Vacuum filters
4 65 72 Pumps and compressors
5 48 54 On entrance roads
6 46 52 At White Street, plant noise faint
7 50 56 On berm toward shopping center
The measurements indicate that the radiated noise
levels are high enough to cause a possible public reaction only
within 300 feet of the plant edges. Since the nearest houses
are 800 feet from the-plant, no noise complaints should be ex-
pected.
Table 11-4 summarizes the measured sound levels taken
at the South Buffalo STP. The sound level measurements for the
South Buffalo sewage treatment plant (RA-R-406) also indicate
that no adverse community response to plant noise should occur.
Although houses are located 800 feet to the west and north of the
11-14
-------
TABLE II-
MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT SOUTH BUFFALO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANr
Measurement Level
Site No. (dBA) L Comments
_____________ dn
1 68 75 Pumps
2 54 60 General plant noise
3 69 75 Splashing of surface aerators
4 55 61 Splashing of trickling filters
5 59 65 Pumps and general plant noise
6 51 57 200 feet from boundary
7 49 55 100 feet from boundary—highway
noise dominating
8 48 54 250 feet from boundary—plant
noise not audible
-------
plant, the quietness of the plant and dense vegetation which
attenuates acoustic waves cause negligible plant noise levels
in the residential areas. Just 250 feet outside the plant
boundary fence, the noise levels are sufficiently low that no
complaints would be expected.
For comparative purposes, noise level measurements
were also obtained in the vicinity of the Cone Mills, near 16th
Street and Highway 20. The sound level varied from 58 dBA to
68 dBA. In contrast, the radiated noise is below 50 dBA at the
boundaries of both treatment plants. This is 8 dB below noise
at the Cone Mills boundary, which illustrates the relative
quietness of the plants.
e. Geology
The information presented here is derived chiefly
from previous studies of the area. Three aspects of the geology
of the area are important to urbanization- - the landform or
topography, the geologic substrate (below the soil zone), and
the geologic processes.
Topography
Guilford County is in the Piedmont Plateau physiographic
province, which is a plateau primarily in the sense that it stands
above the adjacent Atlantic Coastal Plain. The topography is
gently rolling or undulating in the uplands, but becomes some-
what more rugged in the vicinity of the major rivers. The area
is covered by the Greensboro 1:250,000 Series topographic map
and most of the area is characterized by 7½-minute topographic
quadrangles study (RA-R-406).
The county is located in the headwaters of the two
major tributaries of the Cape Fear River--Haw River and Deep
River. About 757 of the area of the county is in the Haw River
11-15
-------
basin and about 227 is drained by Deep River. The remaining 37
of the county drains in the Dan - Roa.noke and the Yadkin - Pee
Dee watersheds. The northeast part of the county is drained by
tributaries of Haw River, and the southwest corner is drained
by Deep River. The elevation extremes of the county are from
about 505 feet where Alamance Creek flows out of the county to
975 feet in the extreme northwest corner of the county.
Because Guilford County is in the headwaters of Haw
and Deep Rivers, no major river valleys are present. Conse-
quently, most slopes are gentle (from 1 to 47 ) i,n the areas be-
tween streams where the plateau surface is still preserved.
Near the major tributaries, where more dissection of the plateau
has occurred, the slopes are about 15 to 207g. Slopes in excess
of 257 pose severe limitations for urbanization. Areas where
these steep slopes occur in Guilford County are shown in Figure
11-3.
Geologic Substrate
Guilford County is almost entirely underlain by igneous
and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont Province. Small parts of
the county along the larger creeks are underlain by unconsoli-
dated alluvium. The emphasis of this section is on the rela-
tively shallow geologic substrate, which has the greatest
implications for urbanization.
The bedrock of Guilford County is composed of intensely
deformed metamorphic rocks that have both sedimentary and vol-
Canic origins. These metamorphic rocks have been extensively
intruded by granites and related igneous rocks. A geologic
map of Guilford County and the descriptions of the map units
are presented in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R406).
11—17
-------
C
0
0
• 0
FIGURE 11-3
AREAS IN GUILFORD
IN WHICH SLOPES
GREATER THAN 25% OCCUR
SCALE IN MILES
U
I
—I
wI
ol
UI
ol
s-I
II
-a,
c
C)
I
I-
C l)
a
0
2
3 4
5
8
T
-------
Although the bedrock of the Guilford County area has
had a long and complicated history of formation, the physical
properties of the rocks are not highly variable. Thus, for
example, there is not a great deal of difference in the strength
or excavation potential of the diorite or granodiorite units
that underlie most of the area. Of much greater importance for
urbanization is the depth and degree of weathering of the bed-
rock. In most’ of Guilford County, the bedrock has been deeply
weathered, leaving a thick blanket of soft residual material
called saprolite. The saprolite is much softer, weaker, and
easier to excavate than the bedrock from which it is derived.
The thickness of the saprolite is a significant geologic para-
meter for urbanization. The saprolite is thickest and most
extensively developed on the uplands. In Guilford County, the
saprolite is from 30 to 100 feet thick on the uplands and 25
feet thick or less on the sides of the valleys. Areas north and
west of Greensboro tend to have greater saprolite thickness.
Geologic Processes
The Guilford County area does not have many geologic
processes that are hazardous to the works of man. No active
faults are present in the county, although there is moderate
risk from earthquake activity. The area is in Zone 2 of the
Seismic Risk Map of the u.S.(OL-046). Where the saprolite is
sufficiently thick, slopes that are oversteepened during cut
arid fill operations may- become unstable. Areas having steep
slopes, where slope failure is potentially most likely to occur,
are shown in Figure 11-3. Subsidence or other earth movements
do not occur in the Guilford County area. The most important
geologic processes for urbanization is flooding, which is de-
scribed below in the section on surface-water hydrology.
Another important process, aquifer recharge, is discussed in
the section on ground-water hydrology.
11-19
-------
f. Soils
The soils of the Greensboro area are of two basically
different types--deep, well-horizonated, acid soils in the upland
areas and alluvial soils with less well-developed horizons on
the floodplains of the larger creeks. The upland soils are
characteristic of the soils developed in the Piedmont Plateau,
which is an old surface in an area of moderately heavy rainfall.
In general, these upland soils are quite highly leached and
have two well-developed layers, or horizons, The upper horizon
is typically a sandy or silty loam and the lower horizon is a
clay or silty clay. The upper horizon has a fairly high per-
meability, but the lower horizon (subsoil) is relatively imper-
meable. The soils are mostly developed on the deeply weathered
saprolite, so the depth to hard bedrock is generally greater
than 6 feet.
The alluvial soils represent the opposite end of the
spectrum from the upland soils in terms of soil development.
The flooding of the surfaces on which they occur causes the
soils to be frequently eroded or buried, so that the soil-form-
ing processes do not have a chance to go to completion. As a
result, soil horizonation is poorly developed, and the soils
are classed as entisols (soils without horizons) and inceptisol.s
(soils with only incipient horizons).
Soil Associations
A total of seven soil associations are present in the
Greensboro area. Table 11-5 shows the series included in each
association, 1 the approximate percentage of the county overlain
by the associations, and some of the physical properties and
1 The basic soil map unit now used by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice is the soil series. A soil association is composed of one
or more soil series that occur in a distinctive proportional
pattern.
11-20
-------
TABLE 11-5
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF CUILFORD COUNTY
SOIL
ASSOCIATION
d OD I OF
C aL ’S ??
tSC LODBD
Enos— tdsll-drais.d,
Mecbleohurg brownish, loamy
soils thar have
5 ysl lowish or
reddish clsyoy
subsoil; on
uplands
lfsli—drsinsd
sod modsrstaly
well—drs l,ssd,
brownish loamy
soils that have
a yellowish
clsyey subsoil;
on uplands
Well—dreined, red-
dish and brownish
Loamy soils that
have a reddish
cloyey subsoil;
on uplands
Somewhat poorly
drained sod poor-
ly drained, gray-
ish sod brownish
loamy soils that
have a domlnastly
greyieh subsoil,
and well-drained,
browniah, loamy
soils that have
yellovieh loamy
subsoil on flood-
plaIn. subject to
overflow
TOPOGRAPHIC
MD BtDROCR
OCCURSZNCE LAND COB
Broad ridgetops end
and long side slopee
Narrow r ldgetops.
long side elopes.
end long narrow
drainageways
Half in cultivation ur
psscure——sulted to to—
hacco, smell graIn, soy—
heaoe, lsspsdesa, sod
paeture; other half in
forests and son—farm
uees
About 751 in cultivatioo
or paeture——well—suited
to toheoto, smell graIn,
eoyheane, leepedsoa, and
pssturs
Mostly iv forests or non—
farm uses; test in cuiti—
cation or pasture; suited
to smell greio, corn, soy—
heene, lmspedsaa, tohecro,
end pasture
SOIL SUS hI A ol SURFACE
I IF ASSOCIATION LAStS
SOIL TUI1JBE
Loon IS Oath—brown to
llght—ollve—hrown
Ins sandy loan
or clay loan
Metklevborg 20 Yellowlmh—red to
dark—brown sandy
loam
Minor Soils 35
Appling 35 len—brown to yel-
lowish—brown sandy
loam
Sante 25 Brown and yellow-
Ish—brows candy
loam
Helena 10 Pale—brown to
grayish—brown
sandy loam
Mloor Soils 10
DRAINAGE
SOSSISFACE OS
LAIRS PESSeAB 11115
Strong—brown to loll—draIned
llfht—ollve—htown
clay
Red cod yellow— Well—drained
lah—rmd clay
Yellowish—rod
to strong—brows
clay to sandy
dsp
Yellowish—red to
yellowish—h rows
olay
Strong brows to
brownIsh—yellow
sandy clep to
clay w/gray sot—
tlee
60 Crsyiah—brown to Strosg—brows to
pale—brows asody olive clay to
loan sesdy loan (uppor
pert c 1 ep, middle
lower parts
olay loan to san-
dy loem
Boon 35 lark—brown to
light olive—brown
fine aendy loam
or cley loam
Misor Soils
MInor Soils 5
65 Reddish—brows
to dark—brown
sandy clay loam
30 Reddish—brown
to dark—brown
saody loan or
cloy loam
Red clap to clay Wall—drained
loam
Red rlay ta tim ) Wail—drolned
loan
Cbewarla 60 Dark—brown and Yellowish—brown to u,mes’hat poorly
light—brows can— grap clap loan, loam, drained
dy loan sIlt loan, asd wendy
r lsy hsum
Wsdhadkse 35 Orsy, grayIsh— Gray silt loam, Poorlp—drelssd
brown, brown and ailty day loan,
dark graylab-brown candy clay loan,
silt loan and fins and loam
sandy loan
Coogeree 10 Brown and dark— Brownish loamy Well—drained
brown loan cod send to clay loan
fine sandy loan with brownish—
gray bslow 2$
inches
Coronate 55 lark—red end
dark reddieb—
brown clay loan
Menklenborg 35 Yellowish—red
to dark brown
sandy rley loan
Minor Soils 10
OtNESALLZBI
DESCRIPTION
Broad ridgstops, long
side slopes, end losg
narrow dralnagewaye
Broad. sanoth ridge—
tope, bog sida slopes
and bog oarroe drain—
agewape
‘dell—drained,
brownish, loamy
so;la that iave
a reddish clap—
ey subsoil; on
uplands
Half in cultivation or
pastors——well—suited to
smell grain, corn, soy-
bmacto, lespsdesa, tobac-
co, and pastors; othar
half io forsete and non—
form uaae
CanI1 60 SeddImb—brown to Red clay to clap
dark-brown sandy boem
lean or clay loan
MadIson 30 Dark—brown to rod— Red micaceoss
dloi—brown ssndy clay and clay
clay loan loan
Minor Soils 15
Cecil—
Madison
29
App iiog—
vance—
Helena
iS
Wilkes—
Boon
i
Madison—
Cecil
Cbewacla—
¶dehadkme—
Congarem
Idol 1—drainsd
W Il—drained
Well-draisad
Modmrateiy
usll—dreioad
Wall—drained,
Narrow, winding
Mostly is forests; vsst in
brownish, loamy
ridgetops, long
cultivation or pasture;
soils that have
steep side siopse.
less sloping arean fairly
yellowish clay—
sod bog narrow
wall—suited to smell grain,
ey subsoil; on
dreioageweys
pasturm, and tobacco
uplands
WI has
Strong—brown to Wail—draised
lltht olivo—brown
clay
Madiaoo
Cecil
0
Ploodpleioe
groad ridgetope and
long oids slopes
Suited to watar—
tolerant crops
ood pasture
Suited to pantore
and oater—tolermnt
tress
ioU—suited to
most crops
Coroseca— Weil—drainsd,
Mmnklenbsrg reddish and
2 browsieh loamy
soile thet bane
a reddish cloy—
ey subsoil; on
uplands
Most to cultivation or
pantore——ealted to smell
grain, corn, soybeans,
leepedesa, tobacco, and
pastors; rest in forset
or non—farm uses
Dark red ciay Osil-dre lomd
Red and yellow— Well-drained
ish—rsd nay
11-21
-------
suitabilities of the associations. Nore detailed information
about the series comprised by the associations, including
quantitative engineering properties, are presented in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
Soil Suitability Maps
Figures 11-4 and 11-5 show the soil suitability for
two uses of greatest concern. for the proposed project--septic
tanks and land application of sewage effluent. The ratings
used for the units shown on the map are generally as follows:
Good - indicates that the area is well-suited for
the use; few areas are unsuited, and most
of the limitations are easily overcome by
engineering measures.
Fair - indicates that some parts of the area are
poorly-suited for the use; most limitations
can be overcome by engineering modifications
but only at considerable expense.
Poor - indicates that much of the area is not
suited for the use; where engineering
modifications will overcome the limitations,
such modifications would be expensive.
Unsuitable - indicates that most of the area is not suit-
able for the use; engineering modifications
may render some sites suitable, but the as-
sociated costs are likely to be prohibitive.
The soils of almost all parts of the county are well
suited for road and building construction. There may be local
11-22
-------
RT
- I -
ROCKINGHAM CO.
—
FIGURE 11-4
SOIL SWTABILITY FOR SEPTIC TANKS
LEGEND
a
0
I
I-
U)
0
1111 PAIR
POOR
FAIR To POOR
-------
ROCKINGHAM Co.
MOSTLY UNSt TABLE
-------
problems of soil consolidation under the load of a structure
where saprolite thicknesses are greater than 25 feet, but on-
site soil investigations would be required to determine if this
problem exists at a proposed building locations.
Certain soils are rated “good” for land application
and “poor” for septic tanks; these are the alluvial soils
(Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree association) . The uppermost soil
horizons are well-supplied with oxygen and bacteria, and would
provide good renovation of the applied effluent soils. Septic
tanks and associated drainfields, however, are buried below
the upper soil horizon, in material with poor oxygenation and
few bacteria. Septic tank effluent is therefore not likely to
be renovated when or if it reaches small aquifers associated
with the streams. Furthermore, while effluent application
usually involves large areas, septic tank effluent flows into
much smaller volumes of soil, further limiting the potential
for renovation. It should also be noted that the areas having
“goode’ soils for land application are not likely to be used
for tnat purpose in any case for unrelated reasons: their prox-
imity to streams promotes associated surface water quality hazards
and periodic operational problems.
It must be emphasized that these maps are highly gener-
alized and are useful only for preliminary planning purposes.
The soil associationsare composed of soil series having similar
but somewhat different properties. Also, the maps indicate suit-
ability of the area only with respect to the soil itself. Little
consideration is given to either the processes taking place at
the surface or to the bedrock below the soil zone and its pro-
perties. For these reasons, a more detailed study would be re-
quired at a particular site before its suitability for a specific
use can be evaluated. Uniform coverage of the study area with
respect to site-specific soil character is not available.
11-25
-------
g. Hydrology
(1) Ground-Water Hydrology
The geologic setting of the Greensboro area precludes
the existence of major regional aquifers. However, shallow, low-
productivity .water-table aquifers do exist and serve as important
sources of water, particularly in rural areas.
Ground-Water Geology and Aquifer Characteristics
The ground water in Guilford County occurs in two types
of material that act as a single aquifer system--the weathered
saprolite and underlying fractured bedrock. The water in the
saprolite occurs between the grains of weathered materials,
whereas the water in the bedrock is in joints, fractures, cleav-
age planes, and similar openings. Unweathered and unfractured
bedrock is essentially nonporous and impermeable, but the frac-
tures in the upper part may provide as much as 1% porosity.
Few water-bearing fractures extend below a depth of 300 feet.
The upper boundary of the aquifer system is at the water table
surface. A diagram illustrating the occurrence of ground water
in the saprolite and fractured bedrock is shown in Figure 11-6.
In general the saprolite has a much higher porosity
(20 to 5O7 ) than the bedrock (mostly less than 1%) (FL-077).
However, the saprolite is usually much thinner than the bedrock
part of the aquifer system. The permeabilities of the two parts
of the aquifer are about the same--from 1 to 100 gal/day/ft 2 .
Most wells are cased through the saprolite and are left as open
holes in the fractured bedrock. When a well is pumped, the
water is usually taken from the bedrock, but much of the water
enters the bedrock fractures as leakage from the overlying sap-
route that has a higher water content (FL-077). In some areas
11-26
-------
of the county, however, the saprolite is too thin to serve as
a significant aquifer or the water table is below the saprolite.
N.crhers , x —
FIGURE 11-6
DIAGRAM SHOWING THE OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER
IN SAPROLITE AND UNDERLYING FRACTURED BEDROCK
Attempts have been made in the past to determine rela-
tionships between aquifer productivity and the bedrock geology
portrayed in Figure 11-6. However, other factors besides bed-
rock lithology, such as saprolite thickness and topographic
position, appear to have greater effect on aquifer productivity.
These factors will be described in more detail in a later section.
Recharge, Movement, and Discharge of Ground Water
Recharge of the aquifers in Guilford County is from
precipitation. Most recharge occurs in the uplands, and ground-
water movement is from these upland areas toward the stream bot-
toms. Discharge from the aquifers is primarily by well pumpage,
by evapotranspiration from springs, and as baseflow to streams.
Very little ground water flows out of the drainage basin into
which it infiltrates; the ground water is therefore best viewed
11-27
-------
as subsurface runoff that reaches the streams o the basin much
slower than surface runoff.
It has been estimated that about 10 to 15 percent of
the annual precipitation of Guilford County infiltrates into the
subsurface to become ground-water recharge (FL-077). This percen-
tage is somewhat lower than might be expected, probably because
of the low permeability of the soils and the saprolite in the
county. The permeability of the shallow substrate in the Alamance
Creek basin is about 0.76 in/hr. In the Haw River basin it is
about 1.14 in/hr. and in the Deep River basin, it is about 0.81
in/hr. (DI-218)
The water table of the aquifers in Guilford County has
the same general shape as the land surface but in subdued form.
As a result, the depth to the water table is generally somewhat
greater than average on the hills and less than average in valley
bottoms. The level of the water table fluctuates systematically
through the course of a year because of changes in recharge rates
and because of variations in the rate of discharge by evapotrans-
piration. In general the water table rises relatively quickly
during the months of January through March or April, when plants
are dormant and precipitation is high. Water levels decline
during the remainder of the year, when water losses by evapo-
transpiration exceed water gains by recharge.
Well and Aquifer Productivity
Wells that are drilled in the Greensboro area are not
uniform in productivity, in part because of differences in well
construction methods and in part because of inherent variations
in the ability of different parts of the aquifer system to pro-
duce water. Most wells produce less than 25 gallons per minute.
There are some dug and bored wells, restricted primarily to the
soft saprolite of the upper parts of the aquifer. Most wells
11-28
-------
are now drilled through the saprolite and into the underly-
ing fractured bedrock. These wells are generally cased through
the saprolite, and water is withdrawn from the bedrock. However,
as noted earlier, even in these wells much of the water probably
is derived from the overlying saprolite by downward leakage into
the bedrock. Most wells woul.d tap the majority of water-bearing
fractures within 150 feet of the ground surface, and virtually
no wells will have increased productivity by drilling more than
300 feet deep. It is usually more effective to drill two wells
to depths of 150 feet than to drill one well 300 feet deep.
Because the saprolite is more porous and contains more
water than the fractured bedrock, areas having a thick cover of
saprolite will usually produce more ground water than areas with
thin saprolite, provided that the water table is encountered at
about the same depth. Wells that are drilled in valleys or
other topographic depressions will generally produce more water
than wells on ridges or hilltops. There are two reasons for the
greater productivity in low areas: (1) most ground-water flow
is from upland areas toward the streams, so the greatest flow
and water availability is in the low areas; and (2) the low
areas have formed as depressions because the bedrock is often
intensely fractured, and less resistant to erosion. This in
turn promotes high ground-water content (LE-266).
Differing estimates have been made for the total quan-
tity of ground water that might be available in the Guilford
County area. In one study, empirical relationships were estab-
lished between precipitation rates and rates of ground-water
recharge for the major drainage basins in the county. Under the
assumption that the maximum safe rate of ground-water withdrawal
is about equal to the rate of recharge, it was estimated that
about 33 million gallons per day (MGD) of ground water may be
available (DI-128). This estimate is probably conservative.
11-29
-------
Using another method that is based on strearnflow data, the North
Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources has more
recently estimated that as much as 145 MGD might be available
from ground-water sources (NA-337). The U.S. Geological Survey
has estimated the availability at about 160 to 195 MGD (NA-337).
Ground-Water Use
Because of the relatively low productivity of most
wells in the Greensboro area, ground water is used primarily by
single-residence domestic wells. However, several industries
and the town of Gibsonville also utilize ground water as a water
source (NA-337). As early as 1948 about 375 wells had been
catalogued in Guilford County (MU-130). The total use of ground
water in the county has been estimated at 11 MGD (DI-128).
Ground-Water Quality
The natural ground-water quality in the Greensboro
area is quite good. Probably the most troublesome water quality
problem is an objectionably high iron content in some areas. A
more serious ground-water problem in the Greensboro area is that
of aquifer pollution from man-made sources. The most serious
and widespread threat to ground-water quality is from numerous
septic tanks in the area, although other sources of contamination
are also present. Where septic tank density is not too great,
the thick soils and saprolite in most areas should serve to
renovate the septic tank effluent quite well before it reaches
any aquifer systems. In many areas, however, low permeability
or insufficient soil thickness limits the number of septic tanks
that can be accommodated satisfactorily. It appears that the safe
number of septic tanks has already been exceeded in some places,
owing primarily to poor siting and/or maintenance. Most of the
county is considered to have about the same potential for site-
specific problems and ground-water quality degradation from septic
tanks.
II-3(’
-------
(2) Surface-Water Hydrology
The i iediate Greensboro area is drained by several
major tributaries to the Haw River. These flow in a generally
northeast direction and tend to parallel each other. The area
to the southwest of Greensboro is drained by the East and West
Forks of the Deep River, both of which drain generally south-
eastward. Figure 11-7 shows the main creeks draining the Greens-
boro and surrounding areas. The creeks eventually draining into
the Haw River include (from north to south):
• Reedy Fork
• Horsepen Creek
• North Buffalo Creek
• South Buffalo Creek
• Little Alarnance Creek, and
• Big Alamance Creek
Main tributaries to the Deep River include (from west to east):
• West Fork, Deep River
• East Fork, Deep River
• Hickory Creek, and
• Polecat Creek
Of these creek basins only two, North and South Buffalo,
have significant areas of extensive urbanization. Watersheds with
limited but increasing acreage under development include Horsepen
Creek, Little Alamance Creek, and the East Fork of the Deep River.
The remaining basins are primarily natural and agricultural water-
sheds having little development as yet.
A summary of average stream discharges and 7-day, once-
in-lO-year low flows (as estimated by the U.S.G.S.) is presented
in Table 11-6 for the creeks in the Greensboro area. Correspond-.
ing data collection sites are shown in Figure 11-7. These data
tI—31
-------
FIGURE II -?
HYDROGRAPHIC AND
HYDROLOGIC CHARAC-
TERISTIC8 OF DRAINAGE
BASINS AND SELECTED
SITES
LEGEND
• SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT
o STREAM DATA
COLLEOflON POINT
I D SITE NUMBER
AVERAGE FLOW
(CF .,
AVERAGE UNIT
FLOW (CPSI$O.UU
V DAT ONCE IN 10
YEAR LOW FLOW
(cP SI o
a
I
I-
a,
0
U.’
H
-------
TABLE 11—6
DRAINASE AREAS, AVERAGE DISCHARGE MID 7-DAT-ONCE-IN-lO-TF.AR LOW FLOW DETERJ1INNATIONS
FOR SELECTED 8’rREAM SIT NEAR GREENSBORO, NORTh CAROLINA
1-Dey-Orice -In
Unit Values
(per square mile)
Average 1—Day—Once—In
Drainage Area
(eq. ml.*)
Average Discharge
(cfs”)
10-Tear Low Flow
(c(s)
Discharge 10—Year Low Flow
(cfslsq. ci.) cfsfsq. ml.
NATURAL WATEItHEDS
1. Upper Reedy Fork (above
19.9
22.1
3.1
1.13 .186
lakes)
2. Reedy Fork (below lakes)
133
101
13.0
.16 .098
2a. Reedy Fork (below Buffalo
254
280
15.0
1.10 .059
Creek)
3. Big Alamaiice (below
i]6
113
1.7
.97 .015
Little Paa ance)
DEVELOPING WATERSUEVO
4. Horsepen
15.9
11.3
1.1
1.09 .017
5. Little Alamance
30.5
27.0
.5
.89 .016
6. East Fork, Deep River
14.1
15.8
2.1
1.07 .146
URBAN WATERSHEDS
7. North Buffalo (above
21.7
24.0
1.50
1.11 .069
S.T.P.)t
8. South Buffalo
29.6
28.0
.95
.95 .032
9. Buffalo
100.0
105.0
7.00
1.05 .070
* Square Mile
• Cubic feet per second
Sewage Treatent Plant
SOURCE: ff0—ill
-------
show that runoff per square mile tends to decrease from north-
west to southeast, while increases in average flows for urbanized
basins appear to be minor (except where influenced by flows
from sewage treatment facilities). Unit values for the 7-day,
once-in-lO-year low flow also tend to show a rapid decline from
northwest to southeast. A smaller unit discharge rate occurs on
lower Reedy Fork due to the lake system upstream.
Reedy Fork Basin
The Reedy Fork watershed drains most of north-central
Guilford County. The headwaters are 15 miles northwest of Greens-
boro and just inside the Forsyth County boundary (see Figure II-
6)
Main tributaries to the Reedy Fork are the Brush, Horse-
pen and Buffalo Creeks. Stream slopes range from about 16 feet
per mile in the upper reaches to less than 4 feet per mile in
the lower reaches. The channel cross section is typically steep-
sided, and flooding is limited mostly to the stream channel it-
self.
Two on-stream impoundments, Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend,
provide water to the City of Greensboro. Two additional reser-
voirs, Lake Richiand and Lake Higgins, are located on tributaries
to Reedy Fork. Lake Richiand supplies water to Cone Mills., a
textile plant. The effect of these lakes is to reduce flood flows
and stabilize low-flow conditions. The cumulative influence of
these conditions is seen in Table 11-6, as a reduction in average
discharge per square mile drained by Reedy Fork below the lakes,
as compared to other creeks in the area.
Urban development in the Reedy Fork Basin is presently
limited to scattered, primarily residential areas. Most of this
development is to the north of Greensboro and south of the lakes.
11-34
-------
If past growth patterns continue, this area will become increas-
ingly urbanized, and the percentage of runoff reaching Lakes
Richiand and Townsend will also be increased, although the amount
of addition is unknown.
Horsepen Creek
The Horsepen Creek watershed is located just northwest
and mostly outside the city limits of Greensboro (see Figure II-.
7). The average width of the basin is about 3 miles, and the
length of the main channel is more than 7 miles. The average
channel slope is 15.5 feet per mile with much steeper slopes
than this in the headwaters and tributaries.
Except for isolated sections, the floodplain is rela-
tively narrow and contains little development. Much of the flood-
plain in the lower section of the creek is marsh land that serves
as a. natural deterrent to development. Sections of the flood-
plain in the upper basin have protective restrictions limiting
future growth along the creek. With the exception of Guilford
College, most of the area consists of moderate- to low-density
residential developments. An isolated tract southeast of the
regional airport contains the only well-developed industrialized
area.
North Buffalo Creek
The watershed of North Buffalo Creek drains both central
and northern sections of metropolitan Greensboro. Its drainage
area increases from approximately 23 square miles at the North
Buffalo sewage treatment plant, which is located near the eastern
city limits, to about 44 square miles where the creek joins South
Buffalo Creek. The average basin width is about 4 miles and the
length is nearly 12 miles. Stream slopes of North Buffalo Creek
11-35
-------
range from 45 feet per mile in the upper reaches to about 5.3
feet per mile in the lower section.
North Buffalo Creek has more extensive and intensive
urbanization than any other basin in Guilford County. The pre-
sent extent of this development includes the western two-thirds
of the basin. The remaining one-third includes moderate to low
population densities comprising primarily residential develop-
ments. Although the average flow - drainage basin relationships
in North Buffalo Creek above the sewage treatment plant are in
line with surrounding natural basins (approximately 1.1 cfs per
square mile), peak flow rates have increased significantly with
development. Comparisons of unit hydrographs from the early 1930’s
with those from the early 1970’s show an apparent 25 percent in-
crease in peak flow rates. During this period the impervious
cover increased from about 4 square miles to more than 11 square
miles.
The average streamflow rate at the North Buffalo sewage
treatment plant has been determined by the U.S.G.S. to be about
24 cubic feet per second (cfs). Flow at this point is augmented
by an average discharge of 10.08 million gallons per day (MGD) or
15.6 cfs from the treatment plant. Another major flow contribu-
tion comes from an upstream textile plant (Cone Mills), which dis-
charges an average of 3.5 MCD (5.4 cfs) into the creek.
South Buffalo Creek
South Buffalo Creek has its headwaters about 5 miles
southwest of Greensboro and flows in a northeasterly direction.
The creek drains much of southern Metropolitan Greensboro. The
maximum basin width is 5.5 miles near mid-basin and the width de-
creases dramatically downstream. The basin has a length of 15
miles and a total drainage area of 45 square miles . Average
stream slope for the basin is about 9.6 feet per mile.
11-36
-------
Although the floodplain of South Buffalo Creek is some-
what wider than other creeks in the area, channelization has de-
creased storm runoff water heights. Portions of an industrial
area just south of Greensboro appear to infringe upon the flood-
plain boundaries. Continued development within the floodplain
could increase future flood heights.
Existing urban areas are primarily residential with iso-
lated tracts of concentrated industrial development. High-density
urbanization occurs within the north central areas of the basin,
whereas the remaining basin sections contain mostly moderate- to
low-density developments.
Average streamflow at the South Buffalo sewage treatment
plant h s been determined by the U.S.G.S. to be about 28 cfs. Nine
ty percent of the time flow exceeds 3 cfs, Flow is augmented at
this point by an average daily discharge of 9.58 MGD (14.8 cfs)
from the South Buffalo Creek sewage treatment plant.
Alamarice Creek
The Alamance Creek watershed as discussed here refers
to both the Little Alamance and the Big Alamance Creek basins.
These basins are located to the southwest of Greensboro and drain
about 113 square miles at their confluence. The average water-
shed width is about 8 miles and the length is over 13 miles.
Stream slopes range from more than 16 feet per mile in the upper
reaches to about 10 feet per mile near the confluence. Slopes
are somewhat steeper on the Little Alamance Creek branch. Flood-
plains are very narrow and contain little if any development.
The extent of urbanization is presently limited to
northwest sections of the watershed. These are mostly low-density
residential tracts and appear to have little effect on stream
flows.
11-37
-------
East Fork Deep River
The East Fork of the Deep River is located outside
and west of the city limits of Greensboro. It drains approxi-
mately 19 square miles where it enters High Point Lake, one of
the water supply reservoirs for the town of High Point. The
basin has an average width of about 3 miles and is 6.5 miles
in length where it drains into the lake. The average stream
slope is a steep 20 feet per mile. The stream channel is rela-
tively narrow and therefore limits flooding in most areas to
the vicinity of the stream channel.
Present urbanization is concentrated near the north
watershed boundary. Most of this urbanization is industrial
development with limited sections of residential buildings.
The east and south sections of the basin contain isolated sec-
tions of low-density residential developments.
Above High Point Lake the average flow determined by
the U.S.G.S. is 15.8 cfs, and 90 percent of the time the flow
exceeds 4. cfs. The 7-day, once-in-10-year low flow is about
2 cfs.
Reservoirs
The major reservoirs in the area lie in the Reedy Fork
Creek drainage basin and serve as the raw water supply for the
City of Greensboro. The reservoir system consists of a series
of four lakes - Lake Higgins, Lake Braridt, Lake Richland and Lake
Townsend. Lake Higgins is on Brush Creek, a tributary to Reedy
Fork. The lake has a drainage area of 12 square miles and a
storage capacity of 107 million cubic feet. Lake Brandt re-
ceives streamfiow from West Reedy Fork and Horsepen Creeks and
is supplemented by water released from Lake Higgins. The
11-38
-------
d ainage area of Lake Brandt is 70 square miles. Storage capac-
ily is approximately 294 million cubic feet. Lake Townsend,
which has a storage capacity of 869 million cubic feet, is the
largest reservoir in the area. The reservoir is located on
Reedy Fork and has a drainage area of 105 square miles. Water
is pumped from Lake Richiand into Buffalo Lake, a small lake in
the City of Greensboro. Water from Buffalo Lake is used by the
Cone Mills textile plant for process water,
(b) Surface Water Quality
Information reviewed for assessing existing water
quality conditions of the area streams and lakes in the EIS
study area included data from the City of Greensboro, and the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Monitoring
Survey. Combining and correlating data from these sources pro-
vides a basis for describing present water quality conditions
in the study area and identifying problem sources which affect
surface water quality.
Wastewater Discharge
The major wastewater discharges in the study area in-
clude the North Buffalo Creek wastewater treatment plant, with
an average flow of 10.08 MGD, the South Buffalo Creek wastewater
treatment plant, with an average flow of 9.58 MGD, and the Cone
Mills textile plant, ith a treated-dye waste discharge of 3.5
MGD. Other minor wastewater discharges include the Reedy Fork
Creek sewage treatment plant (0,05 MCD), Troxier Hosiery (0.003
MGD), Cone Mills (Olympic Products) (0,005 MCD), American Oil
Company (0.001 MCD), Morgan Poultry (0.15 MGD), and the Kerners-
yule Wastewater Treatment Plant (0.7 MGD). The IJ.S.S. Agri
Chemical Plant also discharges nitrogen-containing waste to
South Buffalo Creek, but the volume is unknown.
11-39
-------
The geographical locations of these discharges are
shown on Figure 11-8. Wastewater from the Kernersville plant,
Morgan Poultry, and the American Oil Company are discharged
into streams that are tributary to Lake Brandt.
Non-Point Waste Sources
Non-point-source pollution occurs as a result of storm
water runoff. Some of the major contributors are urban runoff,
agricultural runoff, runoff from construction activity, and
septic tanks. The type and amount of contaminants in surface
runoff will vary largely as a function of land use. In urban
areas contaminants accumulate in the streets and on land sur-
faces between storm events. During storm runoff, the contami-
nants are carried to the receiving stream and can cause signi-
ficant degradation of stream water quality. In addition, soil
erosion currently contributes more than 150 tons of sediment
per square mile to streams in Guilford County (SI-l38).
Area Stream Water Quality Classifications
Shown in Figure 11-9 are the monitoring sites operated
by the NCDEM and the City of Greensboro. Water quality data
from these sites were used to assess present conditions of area
streams. The State of North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management has classified area surface water according to the
best intended use of those waters. Stream segments within in
the study area are classified as follows in Table 11-7.
Class A-I l waters are intended for use as water supply
for drinking or food processing. The intended use for Class C
waters are for fishing, boating, wading and other uses except
for bathing and water supply.
11-40
-------
________ — ROCKINGHAM CO . _______ _______ ______ ______ ______
LAKE BRANDT
\\
N
FIGURE 11-8
WASTEWATER FEATURES WITHIN
THE STUDY AREA
WASTEWATER DISCP4AROE
SOLYP&PIC PRODUCTS)
c i
C)
I
I-
U)
0
LL$
2 3
-. —
SCALE IN
5
4
MILES
8
T
-------
________ ROCKINGHAM CO . ________ _______ _______ _______ ______
--
-
N
FIGURE 11-9
WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES
WITHIN STUDY AREA
• WATER QUALITY MOMIORING SITE
CPF - NCDEM.BITE
080 - CITY OF GREENSBORO SITE
S
I
a
0
I
I-
>-
(I )
0
u -S
2 3
SCALE IN
5
4
-
MILES
6
11
-------
TABLE 11-8
MONTHLY AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN
IN NORTH AND SOUTH BUFFALO CREEKS .
S. BuffaIr at S. Buffalo at N. Buffalo at
Year Month McConnell Road Stream Mile 1.2 Stream Mile 4.9
1975 September 7.1 1.5 2.9
October 7.7 3.0 4.0
November 8.3 4.1 4.6
December 10.0 5.9 6.4
1976 January 10.8 7.7 7.4
Feburary 9.9 7.1 6.4
March 8.8 3.9 5.2
April 7.9 1.6 2.6
May 7.2 3.2 3.5
June 6.4 2.4 4.1
July 6.9 2.4 2.7
August 6.6 1.6 3.2
11-42
-------
South Buffalo Creek
South Buffalo Creek is probably the most polluted stream
in the study area. Dissolved oxygen (D.0.) levels downstream of
the South Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant are consistently
below 5.0 mg/i. Figure 11-10 shows the observed range of dis-
solved oxygen concentrations in South Buffalo Creek from data
collected from NCDEN. Table 11-8 shows the monthly variation
in average D.C. levels at two sites on South Buffalo Creek sampled
by the City of Greensboro. The monthly variation at McConnell
Road averages above the minimum of 5.0 mg/i, while average monthly
D.O. levels at stream mile 1.2 consistently fall below the 5.0
mg/i minimum. Table 11-8 shows that South Buffalo Creek was
low in D.0. during August of 1976. The range of D.O. concen-
trations observed in August of 1976 are shown in Figure I l-il
for the stream reach sampled by the City of Greensboro. High
counts of fecal coliforms were observed at all sampling sites
TABLE 11—7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
OF GUILFORD COUNTY STREAMS
Stream Segment Class
Reedy Fork (west) A 1 1
Moores Creek A—I l
Brush Creek A—Il
Horsepen Creek A—Il
South Buffalo Creek C
North Buffalo Creek C
Buffalo Creek C
Reedy Fork (east) c
Big Alamance Creek A—Il
Little Alamanee Creek A—Il
Alamance Creek A—Il
11-43
-------
0 NCDEM MONITORING StTE
SHADED AREA INDICATES 0.0. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0.0. MEAN
TROXLER
USS AGRI NOSIERY
ZI: SOUTjUFFTP RTHANOH
4 — — — .-—
—. —
I I N ,
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-10 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE OF SOUTH BUFFALO CREEI(
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I
16
CITY OF GREENSBORO MONITORING SITE
SHADED AREA INDICATES 0 0 RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0 0 MEAN
12
8
___ SOUTH BUFFALO STP
CONFLUENCE OF
NORTH AND SOUTH
BUFFALO CREEKS
/
4
0.0. t
0
I , 0
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 1$-lI DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE OF SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
FOR AUGUST 197e (DATA FROM CITY OF GREENSBORO)
11-44
-------
operated by the NCDEM. The average count per 100 ml ranged
from 24,742 to 54,556 for the six stations sampled by NCDEN
on South Buffalo Creek. Values of pH below 6.0 were consis-
tently observed below the discharges from USS Agri Chemical
and Agrico Chemical companies. However, the pH value has in-
creased (probably from dilution) to acceptable levels at the
NCDEM sampling site at Highway 6 and South Buffalo Creek.
Figure 11-12 shows the range of B.0.D. concentrations observed
in South Buffalo Creek. The figure shows the increased B.0.D.
load caused by the South Buffalo Treatment Plant. High concen-
tration of total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and total
phosphorus are present in South Buffalo Creek and are probably
a combined load exerted by the industrial discharges and the
South Buffalo Treatment Plant discharge.
North Buffalo Creek
The dissolved oxygen levels in North Buffalo Creek
are below 5.0 mg/i in places downstream from effluent discharges
from Cone Mills Corporation and the North Buffalo Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Figure 11-13 shows the range of dissolved
oxygen concentrations observed by the NCDEM from June, 1968
to January, 1975. Table 11-8 shows the monthly variation in
average D.0. observed by the City of Greensboro in North Buffalo
Creek at SR 2832. The D.0. levels in the stream reach sampled
by the city during August, 1976 are shown in Figure 11-14. These
data show that average D.0. levels fall below 5.0 mg/i downstream
of the treatment plant. High fecal coliform counts have been
observed at NDCEM sampling sites below Cone Mills (average of
51,415/100 ml) and below the North Buffalo Waste Treatment
Plant (average of 145,743/100 ml). Value of pH higher than
8.5 are observed at the NCDEN sampling site below Cone Mills,
but pH values are in the acceptable range of 6.0 to 8.5 below
the North Buffalo Treatment Plant. Figure 11-15 shows the range
11-45
-------
0 NCDEM MONITORING SITE
TROXL H SHADED AREA INDICATES B.O.D. RANGE
HOSIERY DOTTED LINE INDICATES B.O.D. MEAN
USS AGRI
SOUTH BUFFALO
120- \ // STP
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-12 B.O.D. LOAD IN SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
-------
o NCDEM MONITORING SITE
SHADED AREA INDICATES D.O. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0.0. MEAN
NORTH
CONE BUFFALO
MILLS STP
1 ’ 15
z
U I
0
x
O 10
U i
>
-I
0
U i
0
CONFLUENCE OF
NORTH AND SOUTH
BUFFALO CREEKS
5
12
10
FIGURE 11-13
8 5 4 2
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE FOR NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
0 CITY OF GREENSBORO MONITORING SITE
SHADED AREA INDICATES D.O. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0.0. MEAN
NORTH BUFFALO STP
5 0.0. •
0 I
7 5 5 4
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-14 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE FOR NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
FOR AUGUST. 1978 (DATA FROM CITY OF GREENSBORO)
11-47
-------
0 NCDEM MONITORING SITE
TROXL H SHADED AREA INDICATES B.O.D. RANGE
HOSIERY DOTTED LINE INDICATES B.O.D. MEAN
USS AGRI
SOUTH BUFFALO
120- \ // STP
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-12 B.O.D. LOAD IN SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
-------
O NCDEM MONITORING SITE
SHADED AREA INDICATES 0.0. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0.0. MEAN
CONFLUENCE OF
NORTH AND SOUTH
BUFFALO CREEKS
I,
B 4 2 -;
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-13
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE FOR NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
0 CITY OF GREENSBORO MONITORING SITE
SHADED AREA INDICATES 0.0. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES 0.0. MEAN
NORTH BUFFALO STP
0.0.
15
10
5
0 1 -- 1- 1
7 B 5 4
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-14 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE FOR NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
FOR AUGUST, 1976 (DATA FROM CITY OF GREENSBORO)
11-47
NORTH
CONE BUFFALO
MILLS 8TP
15
z
w
C
x
o 10
0
w
-I
0
0
0
0
12 10 8
€
2
UI
C
‘C
0
0
U i
>
-J
0
0
0
0
-------
0 NCDEM MONITORING SITE
CONE MILLS NORTH BUFFALO STP
/ . ..
1 .• ..•
/ ..
SHADED AREA INDICATES B.O.D. RANGE
DOTTED LINE INDICATES B.O.D. MEAN
CONFLUENCE OF
NORTH AND SOUTH
BUFFALO CREEKS
I’
, ÷-
I I I
12 10 8 6 4
STREAM MILES ABOVE CONFLUENCE
FIGURE 11-15 B.O.D. CONCENTRATION IN NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
(DATA FROM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA)
2 0 -2
E
a
0
160
120
80
40-
V
H
00
-------
of B.O.D. concentrations observed in North Buffalo Creek from
June, 1968 to January, 1975. Figure 11-15 shows that the B.O.D.
load caused by Cone Mills is high and that it contributes signi-
ficantly to the degradation of water quality in North Buffalo
Creek. The North Buffalo Treatment Plant is the most signifi-
cant source of total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and
total phosphorus.
Reedy Fork
The headwaters of Reedy Fork and its tributaries
are classified A-I l. This stream system drains into Lake Brandt,
a water supply reservoir for the City of Greensboro. The NCDEM
operates water quality monitoring stations at three sites up-
stream of the reservoir: (1) on Reedy Fork below the effluent
discharge from Kernersville Water Treatment Plant; (2) on Moores
Creek below the discharge from Morgan Poultry; and (3) at two
sites on Brush Creek. Water quality data from these monitoring
sites show that Reedy Fork and its tributaries above Lake Brandt
are of high water quality. No contraventions of stream standards
have been observed.
Reedy Fork downstream of Lake Townsend is classified
C. NCDEM operates a quality monitoring site (CPF 08) downstream
of discharges from Pinnix Mobile Home Park, Wysong and Miles,
and Autumn Forest Development. The stream is of good quality;
only one observed dissolved oxygen level is below 5.0 tng/l.
The stream is monitored at North Carolina Highway 61 (CPF 19),
which is below the Reedy. Fork confluence with Buffalo Creek.
Low D.O. levels and high counts of fecal coliforms have been
observed. These are believed to be caused by the discharge
from Buffalo Creek.
11-49
-------
Alamance Creeks
The NCDEM operates six water quality monitoring sites
on Little Alamance Creek. Existing data collected at these
sites show the stream to be generally of high water quality.
Dissolved oxygen levels below 5.0 mg/i have been recorded at
Little Alamance and U.S. 421 (CPF 036), but low D.0. levels have
not been observed at the downstream station at SR 3314 (CPF 037).
The fecal coliform data at SR 3077 (CPF 038) downstream of
Country Club Mobile Home Park show an average of 4798/100 ml.
However, this count decays to acceptable levels before downstream
monitoring sites are reached.
Water quality data on Big Alamance Creek are not suf-
ficient to assess the quality of the stream. However, it is
believed to be of high quality.
Horsepen Creek
The NCDEM operated two water quality monitoring sites
on Horsepen Creek from February, 1974 to April, 1975. Analysis
of the data shows Horsepen Creek to be of high water quality.
Dissolved oxygen levels are high, and B.0.D. levels are low.
Malfunctioning septic tanks are known to exist in the Horsepen
Creek basin. Data from the NCDEM monitoring site on Horsepen
Creek located at SR 2136 indicates that contamination by fecal
colifornis presently exists. The average count per 100 ml for
seven samples was 2985. However, this value does not contra-
vene stream standards for a Class A-Il stream. Data from seven
samples taken at the downstream NCDEM monitoring site at Horse-
pen Creek and U.S. 220 show that the average fecal coliform
count had decayed to 260/100 ml.
11-50
-------
Reservoir Water Quality
Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, Lake Richiand and Lake
Townsend form the reservoir system that provides Greensboro’s
raw water supply. Due to the limited water supply, protection
of this reservoir system is widely perceived as a necessity.
Sediment-laden storm runoff is by far the most significant non-
point source pollutant.
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show average chemical and phys-
ical characteristics of raw water withdrawn from Lake Brandt
and Lake Townsend, respectively. The only significant difference
in water quality of these two sources is the higher concentration
of iron (Fe) occurring in Lake Brandt. Physicochemical charac-
teristics of these two lakes (RA-R-406) indicate that temperature
stratification occurs during the summer, which produces partial
to complete oxygen depletion in bottom water and probably signi-
ficantly increases nutrient concentrations during the fall over-
turn event. However, it appears unlikely that these water qual-
ity changes are now accompanied by particularly adverse biologic
responses, probably due to the small detention time of these
impoundments. However, eutrophication is a potential hazard to
the quality of the reservoir water.
At the present time, few quality data are known to
exist for these lakes.
h. Sensitive Areas
A composite map delineating areas of potential sensi-
tivity to disturbance, based on their physical characteristics
or setting, would include most of the land surface in the EIS
11-51
-------
TABLE 11—9
CHEMICAL
AND
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF RAW WATER
SUPPLY FROM LAKE
BRANDT
( Express as mg/i )
Hard- Alka-
Year ness unity Fe Mn Tur Color
1961—62 7.0 27 24 6 .75 .52
1962—63 7.2 24 25 5 .89 .32 146
1963—64 7.2 24 26 5 .87 .18 12 51
1964—65 6.9 19 22 5 1.33 .20 20 135
1965—66 6.9 22 22 5 1.54 .31 47 140
1966—67 7.1 30 31 4 .65 .19 14 42
1967—68 7.0 32 26 4 .77 .15 16 71
1968—69 7.0 32 27 5 1.03 .23 30 83
1969—70 6.6 34 26 6 .79 .19 16 74
1970—71 6.8 30 27 7 1.52 .19 23 70
1971—72 6.8 30 27 9 .88 .26 13 97
1972—73 6.9 31 27 6 .72 .22 18 105
Source: GR—280
TABLE 11—10
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARCTERISTICS
OF RAW SUPPLY WATER FROM LAKE TOWNSEND
( Expressed as mg/i )
Hard- Alka-
Year ness - unity Fe Mn Tur Color
1969—70 6.7 38 31 6 .44 .17 1]. 39
1970—71 7.0 37 31 5 .30 .25 5 27
1971—72 7.0 30 28 6 .28 .15 8 46
1972—73 7.0 32 29 6 .35 .18 9 38
1973—74 — .42 .22
1975_76* 6.6 33 27 4.3 .15 .03 10.5 45
Source: GR—280
11-52
-------
study area. Some areas may, however, be considered sensitive
for more than one reason, and the degree of sensitivity is also
spatially variable. Consequently, the purpose of this section
is to highlight those areas that were identified in previous
discussions on the basis of their physical character as suscep-
tible to significant adverse effects that are due to activities
of man. Areas deemed sensitive on the basis of biological
characteristics or considerations are discussed separately in
the following major section of this document.
The only soil association that is considered an erosion
hazard is the Enon-Mecklenburg association, which is extensively
distributed in the study area (see soil map in the Technical
Reference Document, RA-R-406). Particular care must be exer-
cised in areas where these soils must be disturbed, as in con-
struction activity, and erosion and sediment control measures
may be necessary, particularly in areas of steeper slopes. For
similar reasons, all areas with slopes greater than 25 percent
(as shown previously in Figure 11-3) are also considered very
sensitive to disturbance, without regard to soil type, but areas
that have both Enon-Mecklenburg soils and such steep slopes are
particularly adverse.
Several hydrologic characteristics also may be used
to define sensitive areas. While floodplains of all streams
are generally quite narrow and flood hazards exist only within
a few feet to a few tens of feet of streams, South Buffalo
Creek floodplain along the southern perimeter of Greensboro
tends to be significantly wider than average, and the higher
flooding potential there, especially as urbanization progresses,
requires consideration of this area as sensitive to development.
Development on floodplains is not only a hazard to the integrity
of the development, but may exacerbate flood hazards both up-
stream and downstream. Any activity that depends on natural or
11-53
-------
artificial media for the distribution or storage of aqueous
material of degraded character, such as septic tanks or lagoons
for chemical wastes, is a potential hazard to ground water
quality, if located in those areas that recharge the aquifer.
Virtually all areas except the larger stream channels or their
floodplains are recharge areas for the widespread shallow sapro-
lite-bedrock aquifer system, but locations on the interfiuves
(i.e., uplands) may be the primary recharge areas. Consequently,
these uplands are most sensitive to activities that could de-
grade ground water. Because the public water supply of Greens-
boro is the system of reservoirs on Reedy Creek and its tribu-
taries, these lakes and their tributaries hydrologically are
also sensitive areas. Activities that may directly or indirectly
degrade quality of these lakes or streams require careful assess-
ment as to the degree to which the water quality is sensitive
to that activity.
Areally extensive land-water interfaces, such as wet-
lands, are dynamic features, and are sensitive both physically
and ecologically. In this respect, the marsh that exists where
Horsepen Creek joins Lake Brandt is also considered to be an
environmenally sensitive area.
2. Biological Components
a. Terrestrial Environment
(1) Vegetation Types
Potential Tatural Vegetation
As influenced by topography, climate, and soils, a cli-
max hardwood forest developed in Guilford County which was domin-.
ated on upland sites by white., red, and black oaks, and with post,
11-54
-------
blackjack, southern red and scarlet oaks achieving prominence on
the drier sites. Floodplains and low-lying, moist sites were dom-
inated by willow oak, swamp red-oak, and shagbark hickory; beech
was found in sheltered ravines (00-004).
Today, almost no virgin forest remains of the original
climax cover of the North Carolina Piedmont. Clearing of the
native forests for lumber began about 1750 (FU-072) and the cut-
over areas were subsequently cleared for agriculture. Fields
were cultivated until erosion and cropping reduced their fertil-
ity past the point of economic return and were then abandoned.
The first year following abandonment, old fields are
first dominated by crabgrass and horsewood, followed in the second
year by a mixture of aster and ragweed. Broomsedge becomes domin-
ant in the third year and persists until invading Virginia and
shortleaf pine shade it out. In ten to, fifteen years, pines form
close, dense stands; in the Greensboro area, Virginia pine is the
dominant old-field invader, occurring in nearly pure stands. After
about forty years, hardwoods such as sweetgum, dogwood, sourwood,
and several oak and hickory species develop into a distinct under-
story layer. These species can grow as seedlings in the shade of
the pines although the pines themselves cannot. The pines begin
to die back in seventy to eighty years and are replaced by the
hardwoods. Scattered pines may be found even after 200 years,
however, as successional relicts (00-004). Because the woodlands
of Piedmont North Carolina are now almost entirely second-growth,
late-successional forest, they are presently described as a mixed
oak-hickory-pine type (KU-l17, BR-355), although the original
climax is thought to have been exclusively hardwoods. Fire oc-
curring during this seral sequence favors the growth of pines.
11-55
-------
Present Vegetation
The present distribution of late-successional hardwoods,
mixed pines and hardwoods, pines, and cultivated or recently aban-
doned fields, based on 1976 aerial infrared photography is mapped
in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). As is readily
apparent from these maps, agricultural development and urban
expansion have left a patchwork mosaic of small woodlands in var-
ious stages of succession. Slightly more than half of the total
rural land in the study area is forested.
The vegetation of the study area can be divided roughly
into five types (see Table 11-11) reflecting the combined influ-
ences of topography and successional status. These are (1) mixed
pine-hardwoods, (2) floodplain hardwood forest, (3) pine forest,
(4) old fields, and (5) currently cultivated fields. Characteris-
tic species found in each are presented in Table 11-11. A com-
plete discussion of these vegetation types is presented in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
Sensitive Botanical Areas
Reports (HA-544; CO-582) indicate that sensitive plant
species may be found in the study area. Ginseng, a plant nearly
extirpated in pioneer days when it was dug and sold for its
supposedly medicinal qualities, is a plant of rich woods and,
consequently, would beexpected to be restricted in Guilford
County to floodplain forests and the moist end of the upland
hardwoods continuum. The southern rain-orchid ( Habenaria flava )
and Nestronia ( Nestronia umbellula ) are listed as “threatened
throughout” their range in North Carolina. The orchid is a
moist lowland species and Nestronia occurs in the more moist
mixed hardwood stands. None of these species were found in
the immediate vicinity of alternative treatment plant sites,
but a more thorough investigation is warranted.
11-56
-------
TABLE 11—11
REPRESENTATIVE VEGETATION OF THE GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA AREA
V.g.cet)On T pn
Upmond Hinod
ASP Type
i2. 78
Canopy Tr...
atico o.k
Undarotory yr...
Flunoring dogwood
Shrobe and VIn CI
Ncocyeockle
Pork.
S.docr ao
Pine — ‘4.rdwoode
(Poor cite.)
Soother. r.d oak
Scnri.t o.k
Sourvood
nod cedar
llackb erry
C.lbri.r
inlonoe’. loot
•ell.,ort
Slack oak
Anoricon holly
Pomnan toy
Violet
Poet oak
S.ee.(r..
Wild grape
Co. .’. n.e
Sbookjooh oak
lron uood
Sluoborry
Trillion
Cheatnuc oak
Small Cr... of
)luckl.borry
Pip et...vs
•
Yellow poplar
Nockernut hickory
Il.okgc.
Virginia pin.
canopy epnciea
Virginia cr..per
Copilog. of canopy
apocie.
Seedling. of canopy ep.ciel
Sh,rcl.af pIn.
Upload Mio.d
87
Whit. oak
Flov.ring dogwood
Sa .e be above
ian. a. shone
pie. — Micdvoeda
Slack oak
troovood
lined ott..>
%orthnro rod oak
01110. oak
Ynilo. poplar
lunar .opl.
Son.. gon
boric.. b..ch
Slack 0.10,.
Southern rod oak
Grnen.ah
Virginia pine
Sho t1.et pin.
basswood
Sourcicod
R.dbad
‘ditch c.oni
Pac)pao
Pop bomb...
tad eapl.
Anerlman holly
Rod c.dar
Small mu.. of
rocopy aped..
Floodplain
93
Asarico. .1.
Floc..riog dogwood
S.d elderberry
Forest
.
Cme.n a.h
Sycamore
tSack woman
Slippery ci.
Willow oak
S ug.rb.rry
ted mop).
Sod malborry
boric., holly
iron wood
Sop homeb.os
Chokercherry
Coribarry
-
Ito.r birch
Poop..
lict.rn. .c hickory
Sogor maple
Son. iga.
.ipartoo Fonsi
Sycamore
America. Cl.
Cr.., oak
Lio.r birch
Slick .1150.
Sws.tg.a.
So tarh.rry
ted euihnory
5110cr map).
Red eapi.
top bomb...
lron .ood
Aric.n holly
honeysuckle
tld.rb.rry
Sod grope
Poison ivy
3.. older
llackb .rry
Caibrior
Alder
Violet
Wild oats
Ry.gr..a
gotgl.heooh Ira..
(Siaturbed cites)
Poko ..od
Cone mogoort
Mettle
pine Forest
77, 79
VirgInia pine
SborVl..f pine
D uck 1 . ..
S thnr, red a..
Rod sap).
Red cedar
Sonac;on
Flonariog dogwood
Sournood
hickory spp.
Oak epp.
C irbriar
Poiao tony
Wild grope
llonb.rry
ll.ckb.rry
Japan... honeyoockl.o
$roo.aedgn
Coldeerod
Dog—fee,.)
Thoreogheort
logger’. tinko
o.c .r
Old Field
Virginia pin.
Shortloat pin.
Sumac
Iisrkb.rry
Cubic...
Horesw.ed
Aster
lr.oooedg.
Gold.nrod
Th.rou;bwor .
Dog—fennel
lush-c tenor
bUena tick.
l sg n w.4
Cultivated Finid
Core
Tobacco
Cot I..
Feed groin.
11-57
-------
Similarly, no areas of virgin woodland have been reported
for Guilford County in any of the sources available as of this
writing. A systematic search of the entire study area has not
been undertaken, but observations made by Hendrickson (HE-214)
along North and South Buffalo Creeks indicated that no climax wood—
lands were present. Examination of infrared false-color aerial
photography of the county also fails to reveal any distinctive
forest sta.nds. Field checks have not been made. Of the three main
late-succession forest types referred to above, none appears to be
threatened by human land use to a greater extent than others. Con-
sequently, there seems at present to be no reason, on the basis of
existing information, to distinguish any areas of special sensitiv-
ity with respect to vegetation.
Vegetation of Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
and Sewer Routes
After the site(s) for the selected treatment plant and
sewer routes have been identified, a field trip to Greensboro will
be made to examine each in detail. At that time, a description
of each site’s vegetation will be prepared for inclusion in the
Final EIS.
(2) Fauna
Relationship to Habitat
While the distribution of animal species throughout the
study area is related to the amount and distribution of vegetation
cover types, the natural habitat units have been so greatly frag-
mented (cultivated fields, abandoned fields, and woodlots of vary
ing ages tend to be between 100 and 600 acres in size) that much
of the fauna cannot be assigned primarily to one habitat type or
11-58
-------
another. In keeping with the successional character of the vege-
tation, species of broad tolerances which live easily in the
presence of man and species preferring brushy habitats or open
fields have increased at the expense of typical forest species.
The pattern of clearing and abandonment which, judging from the
present distribution of successional stands, has been going on
almost continuously since settlement, is likely to have maintained
this type of faunal assemblage over many decades. A detailed
list of vertebrate species known or expected to occur in the
study area, together with an estimate of their relative abundance,
seasons of occurrence, tolerance of man, and habitat preferences
has been prepared for this analysis (RA-R-406).
The expansion of Greensboro’s suburbs has resulted in
a diminution of total numbers of species in these areas, but cer-
tain species have benefitted from increased edge habitat and the
availability of food. Many species of small birds adapt well to
suburban habitats and may rely upon bird feeders for up to half
of their winter food supply. Gray and fox squirrels and raccoons,
along with house mice and Norway rats, are usually abundant in
these situations.
Status of Game Animal Populations
The only big game animal found in Guilford County is
the white-tailed deer. Hunting for these animals is limited to
the county, owing to the sparsity of populations. The major
factors which hold down deer numbers are probably illegal hunt-
ing and depredation by free-running dogs (BA-492).
Wild turkey were reported from the area around Lake
Brandt in the 1950’s. They are presently hunted to a limited ex-
tent in the better-wooded northern sections of Guilford County.
Like deer, however, they are susceptible to illegal shooting and
predation by free-roaming dogs and cats.
11-59
-------
Small game affords the greater part of the hunting op-
portunities in Guilford County. Typical “woodlot hunting t ’ is
afforded by the eastern cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, mourn-
ing dove, and bobwhite quail. The cottontail, like the bobwhite
quail, has benefitted from the habitat fragmentaion which has
hurt deep-woods species. Both thrive in hedgerows, weedy fields,
and woodland edges. These are the area’s most abundant game
animals although their populations tend to fluctuate rather
widely from year to year; like other rabbits, cottontail popula-
tions are cyclic. Bobwhites are strongly affected by weather
during the critical brood-rearing season. Cool, wet springs and
su!mners generally mean low fall and winter populations. Dove
tend to follow a similar pattern. Natural predators of these
species are far outshadowed in importance by free-running dogs
and cats (NO-116)
A small area of land, 756 acres in extent, is maintained
by cooperation of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and local landowners for small farm game. This land is located
at the extreme eastern edge of the county at the headwaters of
the Travis Creek drainage.
Endangered Species
None of the mammals of Guilford County are considered
to be endangered either by the State of North Carolina or by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife ervice (US-305, NO-120). The peregrine
falcon which may rarely be seen in migration is officially classed
as endangered by both entities, as is the bald eagle. The latter
species is listed by Dawley (DA-227) as a rare permanent resident
in the county. This list was published, however, in 1954, and no
recent confirmations are available. Bald eagles prefer wooded
areas near water and do not tolerate human activity within a mile
or two of an active nest; therefore, it is unlikely, if any eagles
still remain in Guilford County’s fragmented landscape, that they
breed there. The red -cockaded woodpecker is also listed by Dawley
11-60
-------
as a permanent resident, although recent confirmation is not avail-
able. The sharp-shinned hawk, a species listed as threatened
(CO-582), is reported to nest near Lake Brandt. The State of
North Carolina considers the eastern diamondback rattlesnake an
endangered species, although it is not on the national list. Al-
though range maps indicate that this species’ overall distribu-
tion includes Guilford County (CO—39l), its presence there has
not been confirmed. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis-
sion considers the Dyar moth ( Acrabasis fettella ) rare in the
state which is at the edge of its range. This moth is closely
associated with shagbark hickory and may reside in the county.
The white-crowned sparrow, though not in danger as a species,
is at the edge of its range in North Carolina. The state’s only
known wintering population is located in the Horsepen Creek drain-
age. A small number of wintering birds have been observed around
farm buildings adjacent to the Greensboro-Winston Salem regional
airport. They probably utilize the waste grain to some extent.
Owing to its unfavorable location, it is unlikely that residential
land development that would interfere with this population will
take place in the near future although industrial use of the land
is not precluded.
Figure 11-16 shows the locations of all areas considered
especially important for the area’s wildlife. It should be empha-
sized, in surr ary, that the most critical aspect of the area’s frag-
mented woodland habitat is not the areal extent of woodlots, but the
degree to which they are interconnected by strips of standing timber,
thickets, and fencerows. Although not mapped because, of their com-
plexity, these linkages make it possible to maintain the present
diversity of animal life by permitting the animals to move between
many individual woodlots which could not subsist in the habitat af-
forded by a single forest stand;
11-61
-------
ROCKINGHAM CO.
M
H
I
ON
S3
o
o
.
I-
O)
cr
O
FIGURE II-18
BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
]UU HABITAT OF WHITE-CROWNED SPARRO
^ POPULATIONS OF FRESHWATER CLAMS
^ RELIEF POPULATION OF CRE9ENT SHINER
|U OUILFORO COUNTY GAME FARM LAND
-------
b. Aquatic Environment
Flowing Streams
Guilford County lies at the headwaters of three small
river systems within the Cape Fear drainage, and all of the natur-
al streams in the study area are small. For purposes of this
study, only four of these were investigated: Horsepen Creek,
Reedy Fork, North and South Buffalo Creeks, and Alaniance Creek.
These are the county’s major drainage basins and will all be af-
fected to some degree by one or more of the alternatives being
considered for the Greensboro wastewater treatment system. All
drain into the Raw River which flows through the northeastern
corner of the county.
All of the four streams discussed here are basically
similar with respect to morphology; differences between them arise
primarily from the use of both their waters and their watersheds
by humans
Reedy Fork has been repeatedly impounded to supply water
to the City of Greensboro; flows in the remaining segments of the
creek are therefore artificially regulated by discharge from the
lakes. Since both of the city’s main sewage treatment plants are
located in the Buffalo Creek drainage, water used in Greensboro
is effectively transferred from Reedy Fork to the two forks of
Buffalo Creek. Sewage effluent now constitutes approximately
55%* or more of the flow immediately below the North Buffalo plant
and 457 of the flow below the South Buffalo plant. One apparent
consequence of this transfer is to contribute to the continuing
instability of the bottom in the two Buffalo Creeks (HE-222).
Not only are these streams now carrying a greater volume o water,
especially in flood flows, than that which originally formed their
channels, but the increment of added flow has not been constant.
Based on streamfiow -to_effluent ratio exceeded 5O7 of the time.
11-63
-------
Continuing increase in wastewater effluent reflecting the growth
of Greensboro t s population and the increase in the extent of run-
of f-enhancing urbanization have not permitted flow regimes to
stabilize. In consequence, the suitability of the bottoms of
these two creeks for attached aquatic organisms is generally
low.
Very few recent biological data are available for the four
streams studied. Most of the descriptions that follow are based
on studies conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Com-
mission in 1973 and 1968 (CA-380, FI-l37), and by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration in 1969 (FE-187) . Subsequent im-
provements in water quality are not reflected in this data base,
which should be considered as a worst-case picture of the aquatic
ecosystem. Table 11-12 summarizes the ecological classification
scheme used in the following discussions; this scheme was developed
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Figure 11-17
shows the locations of all sampling stations from which data or
observations have been used in this report.
Hors epen Creek
Horsepen Creek flows through a largely agricultural water-
shed in which residential development is occurring at an accelerated
pace. Throughout the upper portions the banks of the creek are un-
wooded or bordered only by a narrow fringe of trees; the lower por-
tion, near the mouth of the stream at Lake Brandt, flows through
a forested floodplain.
Flow in the creek is not regulated, and typical flows
are low (see TableII- 8 ). Although the stream is perennial) low
flows are little more than a trickle. Water quality data are not
extensive for Horsepen Creek, but observations of the aquatic eco-
system in the stream suggest that pollution is not strongly limiting.
11-64
-------
TABLE 11-12
CHARACTERISTICS OF ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Shallow. 0.1
f. pools
Med.rat.Ly 1—50
abuodsot
pool.
Mod.rat.tj C ..r 30
loni l..o
90010
od.r.c.ly 0,.. 5
..p pool.
No d. rit.ly
4..p pool.
Mod.r.t.ty 0w .? S Cool
£b uodk nt
pool.
M.4 rae.
Os.. 10
Coot
Shallow
0.3
70
ili.ow.
3—to
70.
any pool.
Mød.r.t.
Our 3
Puny 4..p 0... 3
t .rg. pool.
Our 10 W.r.
F .. pool. 0-20 azs
or rttfl...
Sbattaw.
no p0010
Cl. . . ,
Sand, jrent,
bo u ld.ra
. .rt,. 50 54. suck.
silt
O.rt.. Or.,.1, oUt.
luck
Clur r.io.ioan:l
and
‘Ian.. SouL l.r..
r abb1., silt
1 rbtd lilt, suex.
bautd.r.
Sor .stty Sould.r s ,
c i .. . ., rubbt..
ruhbls. si lt
3oil4.r . to
.0 .4
Outdo,. to
.sod
Oould.r. to
sand
Souldsr. to
0 u sd
Sand. suck.
silt
Saad. . 00k,
silt
Oat., Shinto
Robto, ethos’
C.ttra.ckida,
crook chub.
t. rg.souti ha...
Sue 4...
bullh.ada
lat mouth baa..
chain ptck.r.l,
robin
Suck.... catfiak.
satin . .. Cyprtnjd.
Corp. c.cfi.k
S..all. utb S...,
rock SI.., crayfish
Osiabow trout. doe.,
chub.
Srow trout. .uck.rs,
chubS. Ohio...
Ia. ., c*tft.h. whit.
porch. various 5.04—
ro .ow. .p.ci..
Is4ft ptck.r.i..
ur..uth. f li•r
Most b.Odwat.r
oc r....
T 79 t cat o.4tua—
ott. ?t .4 nt
at?...
Mod.rat,—st:.
‘app.r Pt,deo ’ :
and so.. C.n;aj
Plain otr.amo
3 Lac.cwat.r appor
ca.eaL Plato
Otr,05.. Uouslty’
‘tl h1y st.c..d
teds . . t.—siz.
t.ctaont str I fe
Larq.n, siQw—
Clawiog ri’,.rs of
Pl,dao .t and
Coa.tal Plain
M . d.ra t .—i t oo
?eethiU , otr.a..——
so.r .t1y h,
roach.. ta.do—
ably ;slow trout
sat..
sw.r Caleb.. af
so.. trou atr.. ..
3.aU h.adwat.r
tributari.. f
trout Ott....
5140 .t..ltion
stea. ott.n with
b.rrt.n. to up—
.tr.a. fin
.i ratt0n 5
.0r4.r st? laas
.nrIlly with
bsavy, fast-
P towio usc..
tour .l.,stion
jsn.rsli.y tori.
.tr.a.. with slow
flow. d..p pool.
Co..tal stress.
intlnnc.4 by
wt d Sr lunar
tide.
Swoop dzatnaqs
it,.... of Coastal
Plain
Cos.tat Plain sad
so.. P.4*0 c c
straw
Sourcs: P1—137
11-65
s ut
d1D 0
(fast) OUTS TiCkS
(ct.)
10 CD1TT a0 1CoM FAUNAI. 1 Es org
T 4P.
‘Jan..
hors
dorm
ool
Oat.
trickS..
Sob to—
sar south
.arI..outb
l ar;.ceutb—
Ftc.ar.i
: 0 1 ( 1 . , .—
luck..
Corp.
C at (job
S ck.r
a> F..d.p
(hi Stool
0—3
0— 50
Ov.r
10
Ov.r
10
0 v.r
10
30
3...
to
Our
20
0.8
8-30
0,.r 5 han.
Ov.r 30 bar.
Sudan, robin.
waruouth, rock ha..
3.all trout.
sculpt.. Sac.
arook trout. d .c.
c) Ratobow Our
10
(4) 3 ”ow . 0 ,..
8
014.1 Qv.r
20
s4fl* . 0—30
°ar 5000b
0 r 54 5 s4 0—jo
73. •j
• Sorma.Lly
Sari..
0—100 dan, Vut.. Sand. silt Skia.r., .. .U
0 0 0trarcb ,jd.
-------
o RADIAN OISERVATIOM STATIONS. 1 ?e
* N. CAROLINA WILDLWE RESOURCES
COM 8SION. 19S3 (CA-380)
o FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMIMSTRATION. IUS (FE-IS?)
FIGURE lI-IT SAMPLING LOCALITIES: AQUATIC SIOTA
-------
The upper portions of the creek, as far as Radian Station H5, are
narrow (generally less than sixteen feet in width) and alternate
between relatively shallow riffles of an inch to a foot in depth
and poois of several feet deep. The stream channel is cut to
bedrock in the upper portions, and cracking and slumping of the
channel sides are evident only where all woody vegetation has
been cleared from the banks. The bottom in the upper portion is
chiefly small rock and gravel with sands of various sizes. Below
Radian Station 115, the stream widens and deepens, silt-size par-
ticles become prominent, and the water becomes turbid.
At the point where Horsepen Creek enters Lake Brandt,
a small marsh swamp of roughly an acre in size has developed.
A brief visit to this marsh was made by Radian biologists, but
no detailed observations were made; no other information is
available. The bulk of the area is relatively open with manna-
grass, bullrush, and cattail the most prom .nent plants. Alder
black willow, and buttonbush, with a few individuals of red maple,
form a dense band around the outside of the swampy area, decreas-
ing in density toward the center. Bladderwort and water hyacinth
are common in areas of standing water. Mosquito fish were also
observed.
The aquatic organisms observed by Radian biologists
point to generally healthy conditions in the stream. Caddisfly
larvae, generally intolerant of organic pollution, were abundant
at nearly all stations, and moderately intolerant dragonfly larvae
were found at one station, and filamentous green and blue-green
algae were also observed growing on rocks. Although algae were
not abundant on the bottom, they were more commonly observed on
Horsepen than on the Buffalo Creeks or Reedy Fork; it is likely
that the relative clarity of the water and stability of the bot-
tom of Horsepen Creek account for the larger number of algae.
Both Hendrickson and Radian biologists noted evidence of a small
11-67
-------
population of freshwater clams at and about station H5. These
have not been identified as to species.
Hendrickson visited Horsepen Creek in 1975 and reported
on the vertebrate fauna he found there. Fishes he observed inclu-
ded:
Crescent shiner
River chubsucker
Tesselated darter
Speckled killifish
Piedmont chub
The first of these is noteworthy in that it is known
primarily from the Roanoke drainage and occurs in only one other
locality in the Cape Fear drainage. The species is not, however,
considered endangered. Amphibians observed by Hendrickson inclu-
ded the dusky salamander, green frog, and bullfrog. He also ob-
served a northern water snake during his investigation.
Reedy Fork
The flow of Reedy Fork below Higgins Lake is controlled
by the impoundment and release of water from the upstream impound-
ments. In consequence, flows vary much less in this reach than in
the Buffalo Creek system. Radian biologists noted little evidence
of flooding or channel erosion, despite recent heavy rains. The
bottom was comparatively stable, composed of moderately well im-
bricated rock and gravel, with sand and some silt (See Figure II-
16). Below its confluence with Buffalo Creek, Reedy Fork becomes
very rocky with scattered deep pools which provide considerable
cover for fish (CA-380).
11-68
-------
Water quality in Reedy Fork between Townsend Lake and
Buffalo Creek is considered good with mean dissolved oxygen
levels measured as 6.8 mg/i by the State of North Carolina (GU-l05).
Below Buffalo Creek, mean D.O. drops to roughly 4 mg/i, with
recorded minima below 1 mg/i (GU-105). This drop in D.O. is
generally imputed to B.O.D. input from Buffalo Creek; however,
mean D.O. levels in Buffalo Creek four miles above Reedy Fork are
recorded as approximately 4 mg/i (GU-l05). The lower four miles
of Buffalo Creek are rocky with numerous riffles where conditions
would be expected to favor reaeration. The mean discharge of
Reedy Fork at the confluence is roughly equivalent to the mean
discharge of Buffalo Creek. Consequently the low D.O. level
downstream of the confluence is difficult to explain on the basis
of existing data. Ecologically, this means that the quality of
the aquatic habitat the lower portion of Buffalo Creek cannot be
inferred, a finding significant to this assessment. The nature
of the stream channel suggests that natural reaeration should
result in adequate D.O. levels, while the low levels measured
downstream in Reedy Fork seem to contradict this assumption.
The Haw-Deep River Survey classifies the stream into the
robin-warmouthcategory above Lake Brandt. Between Townsend
Lake and Buffalo Creek it is considered in the largemouth category.
Fishing pressure below Lake Brandt is generally light because of
limited access and the relatively greater attraction of the lakes.
However, the segment of Reedy Fork between Townsend Lake and Buffalo
Creek was considered one of the best fishing streams in the Deep-Haw
River drainage (CA-380).
Table 11-13 lists aquatic organisms recorded by the Deep-
Haw River Survey on its two Reedy Fork Stations. The fish samples
were taken using rotenone. Two bottom samples were also taken
with Ekman dredge at each station. It is readily apparent that
the incoming low-quality waters from Buffalo Creek are having a
deleterious effect on the fauna. Not only are fish diversity and
abundance much lowered, the bottom fauna are dominated by relatively
pollution-tolerant oligochaete worms.
11—69
-------
TABLE 11—13
AQUATIC FAUNA OF REEDY FORK
STATION 17C—3 Ecological Classification: Largemouth’
July 12, 1963
Fish species :
Bottom Organisms (fish foods) Game
in order of abundance: 2
Redbreast sunfish 7—5—0 ( 2 30g)
Caddisfly larvae Yellow perch 0—3—0 (50g)
Mayfly larvae Largemouth bass 0—0—1 (212g)
True fly larvae Bluegill 0—1—0 (48g)
Average number per square foot: 21.5 Blackcrappie 0—1—0 (20g)
Non—Game :
Bluehead chub 11—7—0 (228g)
Suckers 0—0—7 (2100g)
Margined madtom 7—0—0 (22g)
Whitef in shiner 4—0—0 (16g)
Johnny darter 3—0—0 (6g)
Piedmont darter 2—0—0 (4g)
Brown bullhead 0—0—2 (lOOg)
Sandbar shiner 2—0—0 (8g)
Steelcolor shiner 2—0—0 (8g)
Spottail shiner 1—0—0 (4g)
STATION 17C-l
August 8, 1962 Ecological Classification:
Catfish—Sucker
Bottom Organisms (fish foods)
in order of abundance: Fish species:
Game
Segmented worms
True fly larvae Largemouth bass .— 1—0—0 (5g)
Mayfly larvae Bluegill — 1—0—0 (5g)
Neuropteran larvae Non—Game
Average number per square foot: 26.5 Brown bullhead — 1—0—0 ( g)
‘See Table 2
2
First three numbers indicate total individuals of 0—4 in., 4—6 in., and more
than six in. length. The number in parentheses is aggregate weight.
Source: CA—380
1170
-------
North Buffalo Creek
As was indicated above, natural flows in North Buffalo
Creek are roughly doubled at the North Buffalo treatment plant by
the addition of its effluent. Its flows may vary by two orders
of magnitude through the years (see section II.A.l.g.). North
Buffalo Creek originates in the City of Greensboro, and rapid
runoff from its heavily urbanized watershed probably enhances
flood flows. Low flows may be maintained largely by effluent from
the sewage treatment plant. The aquatic ecosystem is thus subjec-
ted both to heavy scouring and extremes of pollution, primarily
affecting dissolved oxygen in the water. In addition, flow var-
iability results in a very unstable bottom which affords little
opportunity for developing a community of attached organisms.
Consequently, it would be unlikely under the present hydrologic
conditions that a diverse or abundant aquatic fauna could develop.
As is discussed in more detail in Section II.A.l.g. the
industrial and municipal effluents discharged into North Buffalo
Creek result in a pronounced lowering of dissolved oxygen content
(see Figure 11-14). Below Mile 9, average DO falls rapidly from
about 8 mg/l to 5 mg/i. Below Mile 8, recent records show that
minimum levels fall consistently below 1 mg/i all the way to the
confluence. At a single station at mile 4.9, monthly DO readings
by the City of Greensboro showed that the most critical time of
the year with regard to this parameter was from April through
September when levels were consistently below 3 mg/i. Radian
biologists visiting North Buffalo Creek in November 1976 noted
that the water was black and malodorous with foam below the
riffles.
The bottom of North Buffalo Creek consisted chiefly of
coarse sands and gravel with some silt and occasional rocks and
11-71
-------
rubble, and was very unstable at the Radian observation stations
(see Figure 11-16). A thin layer of black sediment overlay the
bottom at that time. The more or less continuously wooded banks
below the treatment plant showed evidence of recent flooding, but
slumping or cutting of the channel sides were not generally appar-
ent. In the lower portions, the creek flows over several bedrock
ridges which create riffles.
The Deep-Haw River Survey in 1963 classified all of the
Buffalo Creek drainage as a sewer below the two sewage treatment
plants (CA-380). Later, the North Carolina Catalog of Inland
Fisheries (FI-137) classified the upstream reaches of North and
South Buffalo Creeks as dace trickles (see Table 11-12). The
reaches from the edge of Greensboro to the confluence of the two
forks were classified as robin-warmouth (FI-137). These classi-
fications were made on the basis of hydrological characteristics;
no segment of either fork was considered as having any fishing
potential as a result of severe pollution.
No fish were observed in North Buffalo Creek by Radian
biologists; it was not visited by Hendrickson (HE-214) or sampled
for the Deep-Haw River Survey (CA-380). It is possible that mos-
quitofish, which inhabit the equally polluted South Buffalo Creek
could be found in North Buffalo Creek. Radian biologists observed o
life wnatever in the creek just upstream from the treatment plant,
although tracks of raccoon and rat were seen. A riffle at Radian
station NB2 yielded a small number of caddisfly larvae and fresh-
water snails. Station NB3, near the confluence of the two forks,
was located near a small bedrock ridge, below which was a large
amount of foam. In the well-aerated water and on the stable bot-
tom at this point freshwater snails, caddisfly larvae, and true fly
larvae were found, although not in large numbers. The carapace
of an eastern box turtle was also found. Very large numbers of
dead cranefly pupae were observed cast up along the sides of the
11-72
-------
channel; living pupae and fragments of pupal cases were also found
in large numbers in South Buffalo Creek. Blue-green algae were
found infrequently on rocks in quiet waters behind the riffle.
The FWPCA samples of benthic organisms from North Buffalo Creek
were dominated by the pollution-tolerant tubificid worms, with
smaller numbers of bloodworms, sewage-fly larvae, and bristleworms.
A few organisms of intermediate tolerance were found at one station.
Altogether, North Buffalo Creek appears to offer only
marginal habitat to aquatic life, primarily because of the insta-
bility of the bottom and secondarily because of the extreme pollu-
tion of its waters. Only in the riffle areas, where there is both a
substrate and sufficient dissolved oxygen, is aquatic life observed.
South Buffalo Creek
South Buffalo Creek drains a slightly larger area than
North Buffalo, but sewage effluent constitutes 457 of the flow at
the treatment plant 5O7 of the time. As in North Buffalo Creek,
very high flows often occur, leaving debris stranded in the over-
hanging vegetation ten to fifteen feet above the channel bottom.
Low flows may drop to a few cfs for several days. Thus, hydro-
logic instability is again a major impediment to the development
of a diverse and healthy ecosystem.
Dissolved oxygen levels in South Buffalo Creek dip sharply
following the discharge of effluents from USS Agri Chemicals, Troxler
Hosiery, and the South Buffalo treatment plant (see Figure Il-il). Mea
levels of about 7 mg/i above these discharges drop to roughly 3,
make a slight recovery, and fall again at about Mile 4. Below Mile
7, minimum oxygen levels may drop to zero. As with North Buffalo
Creek, the lowest levels occur from April to September. A segment
of the stream below the treatment plant has been channelized as
far as U.S. Highway 70, which permits oxygen-demanding materials
11-73
-------
to move quickly away from their source. Following the channelized
portion, however, the stream follows a meandering course to about
a mile above the confluence in which its velocity slows considerably.
While no water quality stations exist within this stream segment,
it is reasonable to assume that a D.O. sag would be measured there,
resulting from the oxidation of pollutants originating upstream.
South Buffalo Creek is widely recognized as poor quality
water downstre n of Greensboro. Radian biologists found the water
and sediments slightly to moderately madodorous, usually with the
typical small of organic decay.
Above the channelized portion and continuing through it,
the stream bottom is characterized by a very plastic clay which
has almost the texture of soft stone when wet and can be walked
on without sinking. Low ridges or benches of this clay constitute
such riffles as exist above the chartnelized reach. Between them,
sediments are principipally fine sands and silts with occasional
gravelly shoals, all very unstable. Although the streambed it
self is often clayey, the channel sides are generally composed of
a friable sand, and commonly show localized cutting and slumping.
Roughly at the point where Harvest Road crosses the stream, large
rocks appear in the channel and the stream flows over successive
bedrock ridges as far as the confluence.
The Deep-Haw River Survey included a station on Buffalo
Creek (Station 17C) but recorded no fish in spite of using rotenorie.
No sample was taken of bottom organisms. Radian biologists found
that bottom organisms were present at almost all sites, although
they were nowhere abundant and the majority encountered were pol-
lution-tolerant taxa. As in North Buffalo Creek, the bulk of the
organisms found were in riffle areas. Some caddisfly larvae
were found, but most invertebrates were of such pollution-tolerant
forms as bloodworms and sludge worm. One species of annelid worm
11-74
-------
(tentatively identified as Aelosoma ) was found above and below the
channelized portion, and mixtures of green and blue-green algae
were found where rocks or clay hardpan afforded a stable attach-
ment site. About 8 km above the confluence of the two forks, red
and orange-colored floc, assumed to be of bacterial origin, was
observed in backwater areas. The most varied aquatic life was
found just above the confluence probably reflecting the larger pro-
portion of rock in the channel and the consequent aeration of the
water. Dragonfly larvae, caddisfly larvae and freshwater snails
were observed along with bloodworins. Remains of an unidentified
crayfish were also found. No rooted aquatic plants were seen.
These observations corroborate the data from the FWPCA study which
found only tubificid worms in the five stations sampled.
Both Hendrickson (HE-2l4) and Radian biologists observed
rnosquitofish in South Buffalo Creek, and Hendrickson also reported
an unidentified cyprinid minnow in the lower portion of the creek.
He also reported that frogs are abundant and suggested that these
and the snails provide food for herons and raccoons. Water snakes
have been reported for the area, but none were seen by either group
of investigators, probably because of the timing of the site visits.
Hendrickson observed both river cooter (a turtle) and eastern box
turtle, as well as fence lizard, along South Buffalo Creek (HE-214).
The general observations made by Hendrickson and Radian
suggest that the least favorable habitat conditions in the stream
may exist in the channelized portion and the slow-moving segment
just below. Conditions above and below this stretch seem more
favorable to aquatic life, judging from the field observations.
Below the confluence of the two forks of Buffalo Creek,
as far as Reedy Fork, flows continue to be influenced by upstream
urban runoff patterns and municipal wastewater discharge, although
runoff from non-urban portions of the watershed progressively di-
lutes the contaminated upstream flows. Water quality data are
11-75
-------
available only 2 miles below the confluence of North and South
Buffalo Creeks; measurements there show D.0. at a mean level of 4
mg/i. The streamcourse from that point is meandering and rock,
and it would be reasonable to suppose that reaeration brings this
level even higher before the water flows into Reedy Fork, barring
additional BOD input.
Alamance Creek
Flow in Big Alamance Creek, 1.5 miles below the Alamance—
Guilford County boundary, exceeds 79 cfs 507 of the time, with
flood flows of more than 1120 cfs (exceeded 2% of the time) and
low flows of 1 cfs or less (exceeded 99.5% of the time).
The available information base for the Alamance Creek
system is scanty. Water quality records are unavailable. A Radian
biologist has made general observations of aquatic habitat quality
on those portions of the drainage which might be affected by the
proposed treatment system. Information on the stream’s fish popu-
lations is drawn from the Deep-Haw River Survey (CA-380) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Conmiission’s Catalog of Inland
Fisheries Resources (FI-137) complemented by some incidental ob-
servations by Hendrickson (HE-216). In addition, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (FE-187) sampled bottom fauna at
two stations.
The Alamance Creek system consists of Little and Big
Alamance Creeks, which join to form Great Alamance Creek, which
flows into the Haw River. Little and Big Alamarice Creeks are
classified into the Haw River. Little and Big Alamance Creeks
are classified as robin-warmouth streams, while Great Alamance
is considered a catfish-sucker stream. The combined observations
of Hendrickson, Radian and the Deep-Raw Survey are sunmiarized in
Table 11-14.
11-76
-------
TABLE II—iL
AQUATIC FAUNA OF BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
STATION 17C—5 Ecological Classification:
Robin—warmouth
July 12, 1963
Bottom Organisms (fish foods): Fish species:
Mayfly larvae Game
Aquatic beetles Redbreast 4—1—0 (82g)
Segmented worms Largemouth bass 1—1—2 (218g)
Caddisfly larvae Bluegill 2—0—0 (12g)
True fly larvae *Sjlver redhorse
Average number per square foot: 7.0 *Smallf in redhorse
*Bluegi 11
*Pumpkinseed
Non—game :
Bluehead chub 13—1-0 (72g)
Piedmont darter 6—0—0 (8g)
Margined madtom 2—3—0 (32g)
Sandbar shiner 5—0—0 (15g)
Johnny darter 2—0—0 (4g)
Steelcolor shiner 2—0—0 (6g)
Pirate perch 1—0—0 (trace)
*Satjnfjn shiner
Sources: CA—380 Pt. 2; HE—216
*Observed separately by Hendrickson
11-77
-------
The river is dammed three times between Reedy Fork and
Saxapahaw; two of these dams have been breached by flooding. Be-
cause of the effect of the dams on the width and depth of the
river, it is classified as either a catfish-sucker type (shallower
reaches) or a carp-catfish type (impoundments and deeper waters).
Above Reedy Fork, the Haw River supports a modest catfish and sun-
fish sport fishery. Between Reedy Fork and Alamance Creek, the
stream is considered too polluted to support a sport fishery (FI-137).
Table 11-15 lists phytoplankton found in the Saxapahaw
Impoundment (FE-187). This type of community can also be expected
in the slower-moving upstream areas.
Lake Brandt
At the present time, comparatively little information is
available on the aquatic ecosystem of Lake Brandt. The informa-
tion presented here was furnished by Scott Van Horn of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources CommisSion (VA-157).
Lake Brandt was built in 1921 and expanded to its present
size of 810 surface hectares in 1960. The lake has a mean depth
of 36 feet and stratifies in summer with the thermocline at about
13 feet. Temperatures measured in July, 1969 were 88°F at the
surface and 65°-76°F below the thermocline. Dissolved oxygen was
adequate in the surface layer (8 mg/l) but greatly depleted below
the thermocline (0-1.5 mg/i).
The shallower portions of the lake, especially the mouth
of Horsepen Creek and Reedy Fork as it enters the lake, become
choked in summer with extensive beds of water lilies and pondweeds
of various kinds. No information is available regarding algae
found in the lake or the extent to which spring and/or fall turn-
over influences their abundance. Table 11-16 lists fish found in
11-78
-------
TABLE II-1
PIIYTOPLANKTON DATA - IIAW RIVER IHPOUNDHENT AT SAXAPAIIM, N.C .
I )*1AIWT 141* - 11411 I 2112.4 IIOIWINThSLIT *T 14.5*1*11411. 11. C.
*1102*7 24. 2103 1424051 21 . 21011 SWTISU I) 1101
$7 47102 *78712 1 4 3)072214 37*flUN 1 70 72(14 * 1* 7 10 1 41 0 7 2011 1707202 5 7 4 , 4 214
L. 4 I . ) I. I L-4 L-) L.l L-4 L-) L-I
C, . CI I . CI .
Co* .Id 11 I14i2511 1
77130! 1.201 1.14 12 3.2110 3.0 )2
4 .4071 14 . 12.24440* 40
7 4 0•I ) 7 14 1.12 1 3,4*3 1,102 2.2* 1 3.0)2
rIt eac, ... 42 0-Uen
114 1111
40 10 II. $7 I I )
7.5*2 2 1
4 . -I -•
a _e
£.kI.1t. .d ..N •p. 37 112 2211 2*1 223 3 1 $ 114 10 142
c 1!71.II. 10. 3.212 2.420 II ) 3.373 1123 3,732 *02 2 )7 1.21$
C401..4n 10 2 1 1 114
20i20 271 40
!* ‘P 200
71L!! ‘P
! ‘— — ‘ ,. IN 23 71
I ! 30 .11.
2 3
1,403 1,774 110* 3.754 1.45$ 401 2.324
ç .L . ..4*1—.,.. . •p. 2,244 715 2.1101 4.210 372 1.431 240 473 2.354
&!!02 p. I I I 114 23 I I 114
! .p. SN 22 I l l u4 37 40 SN 51
7.2 .) 2,330 1,0 ) 1 3.02 4.2110 1 1 9 4 2,543 402 1 2) 2.691
014.5 pt5 0 d40 Vl* 5.Il .IWN
T ,.d,.L*—02 .p. 4* 4 37 14) 2 71 23 711
SeN 57 *3 33 23 211 27
1255 0. . IlW 1 140*1. I A) 27 37 272 52 ) 2111 5 7
I I .. p . .14 .1 . 42.2*1.
1.1.1 II .. •1555 10.72) 5,431 1 2 . 3 2 1 51,51 1 7.17$
Source: FE—187
-------
the lake. Fishing on the lake is popular, although permitted only
from city-owned boats. Lack of forage species has been a problem
in Lake Brandt, and threadf in shad were introduced in 1967 and 1969.
Fish from these stocks winterkilled, but restocking in 1972 seemed
to produce a surviving population. Because of low availability of
forage fish, largemouth bass are small and slow-growing.
TABLE 11—16
-
FISHES OF LAKE BRANDT
Came Fish
Pumpkinsaed Lepomis gibbosus
Bluegill Leoomis nacrochirus
slack crappie Ponoxis nigro—naculatus
White crappie Pomoxis annularis
Yellow perch Perca flavescenS
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
Warmouth Chaenobryhus gulosus
Green sunfish Chaenobryhus cvanellus
Chain pickerel Esox niger
2 Largemouth sass Micropterus salmoides
White bass Morone crirysops
Non—Game Fish
1,2 Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Slack bullhead Ictalurus nelas
Flat bullhead Ictalurus 2 ycephalus
1,2 White catfish Ictalurus catus
Channel catfish Iccalur i punctatus
2 Carp Cyprinus carpio
Goldfish Carassius auratus
Golden Shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucas
Threadfirt shad Dorosona petenense
Blueback herring Alosa aestival S
‘Major species by weight (Source: VA—157)
2 Major species by number (Source: VA—157)
‘Stocked but possibly not surviving over winter
1 1-80
-------
B. Man-Made Environment
1. Demography and Economics
a. Current Population Data
This section discusses population (number of inhabitants)
for the EIS Study Area and six components of the population; namely,
age distribution, racial distribution, house tolds, average house-
hold income distribution, and employment within tile area. Support-
ing documentation including breakdowns by census tracts and method-
ologies used herein may be found in the Technical Reference Docu-
ment (RA-R-406).
(1) Number of Inhabitants
As reported in the 1970 census, there were 288,645 peo-
ple in Guilford County, of which 144,076 people, or 49.9 percent,
were within the City of Greensboro. Table 11-17 compares the
city and county population to that of the state and nation. Guil-
ford County has consistently outpaced the state and nation in
percentage increase of population since the early 1900’s.
The OBERS population for the Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point, i’ Torth Carolina Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) was disa.ggregated by the Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina (US-528). In 1960,
the estimated OBERS population for the 201 Study Area was 161,316
people. By 1970, therewere 191,432 people and in 1975, the
population was 193,871 people. These figures represent 18.7 and
1.2 percentage increases in population for the 1960-1970 and 1970-
1975 periods.
11-81
-------
TABLE 11—17
Source: US—660
US—66 1
US—662
POPULATION TRENDS FOR VARIOUS AREAS, 1900 - 1970
United States North Carolina Guilford County Greensboro
‘-4
l;4
00
%
Year
1900
Population
76,212,168
Change
————
Population
1,893,810
Change
————
Population
Change
————
Population
10,035
Change
————
39,074
1910
92,228,496
21.0
2,206,287
16.5
60,497
54.8
15,895
58.4
1920
106,021,537
14.9
2,559,123
2.4
79,272
31.0
19,861
24.9
1930
123,202,624
16.2-
3,170,276
23.9
133,010
67.8
53,569
169.7
1940
132,164,569
7.3
3,571,623
12.7
153,916
15.7
59,319
10.7
1950
151,325,798
14.4
4,061,929
13.7
191,057
24.1
74,389
25.4
1960
179,323,175
18.5
4,458,000
9.8
246,520
29.0
121,591
63.4
1970
203,211,926
13.3
5,091,000
14.2
288,645
20.2
144,076
18.5
-------
The OBERS disaggregation for the 201 Area has been ad-
justed because 100 percent of the population of census tracts
119.01, 121, 124.02, 128.02, 129, 132, 133.01, 133.02, and 134.01
was originally included. Portions of these tracts are beyond the
201 Study Area. Through the use of land use maps and aerial
photographs, the population within these tracts that is outside
of the Study Area was calculated and subtracted from the totals.
Also, an area not included in the environmental assessment has
been added to the Alamance subbasin. Original OBERS disaggrega-
tions did not include the additional area.
Table 11-18 shows the 1970 and 1975 population and
acreage by planning subbasin. Further details on the methodology
used to calculate 1970 and 1975 population may be found in the
Technical Reference Document ( A-R-406).
The Study Area had a population of 185,360 people in
1970 and 196,617 people in 1975. North and South Buffalo subbasins
contain the majority of the population (77.7 percent). The city
limits of Greensboro fall mostly within these two planning areas.
Density varies from basin to basin. The Hazen and Sawyer Environ-
mental Assessment (HA-544) demonstrated, and 1960 and 1970 census
tract statistics show, a declining central city and a decline along
a westerly axis through the city. Slight growth has occurred in
the northern edge of the city with significant increases occur-
ring in the peripheral areas. For some period of time, most
growth has occurred in a westerly direction. Figure 11-18 shows
population density within the Study Area. Density was calculated
by census tracts except in areas where census tracts are large.
In these areas, building permit data, land use maps, and aerials
were used to determine density.
11-83
-------
TABLE 11—18
1970 AND 1975 POPULATION AND ACREAGE BY PLANNING SUBBASIN
Acreage
1970 1975 Within
Subbasin Population Population Subbasin
Reedy Fork 8,811 10,729 52,896
Deep River 588 596 4,294
Horsepen Creek 7,552 8,080 11,021
North Buffalo 83,519 85,539 20,403
South Buffalo 64,032 67,327 19,738
Reedy Fork (East) 2,761 2,857 21,811
North Buffalo (East) 2,677 3,147 8,570
South Buffalo (East) 3,105 3,670 7,635
Alamance 10,935 13,169 44,787
Buffalo 1,380 1,503 8,986
TOTAL 185,360 196,617 200,141
Source: GR—272
iI-84
-------
71 I: 4 Sfl\ 1
— /
r liii eIIIIIIu
P . , x ’
/
i —
- A .A
AREAS OF LOW DENSITY DUE TO WASTEWATER
DISPOSAL LIMITATIONS (See Note)
PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
LESS THAN 500
500 TO 1000
111111ff 1000 TO 2000
MORE THAN 2000
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
— — — — PLANNING SUBBASIN BOUNDARY
— — — - GREENSBORO CITY LIMITS
DEEP
RIVER
NQI C
THESE AREAS ARE WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS OF THE
C.B.D. AND HAVE SOIL CONDITIONS LESS SUITABLE FOR
SEPTIC TANK USE THAN THOSE TO THE NORTH AND WEST
OF THE CITY THAT HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED. PROBABLY.
THESE AREAS WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED HAD SEWER BEEN
AVAILABLE.
SOUTH r
POLECAT
CREEK
‘lb
: ::: ‘h —
I!I.I !
:: : . .:::±:J ’
::
SCALE IN MILES
0 1 2 3
GREENSBORO - GUILFORD COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
POPULATION DENSITY 1975
ERIC HILL ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS
ATLANTA, GA. WINSTON . SALEM, N. C.
a
-------
(2) Age Distribution
In addition to the steady increase in population, t ie
composition of the population has changed. Table 11-19 compares
the age distribution of the Study Area with the nation, state,
and county. An assumption was made that the EIS Study Area and
Guilford County have similar percentages of age distribution be-
cause the Study Area encompasses such a large percentage of the
county.
The population of Guilford County is aging somewhat.
Table 11-19 shows that younger cohorts had relatively smaller
percentages of the population in 1970 compared to 1960. Also,
the older cohorts (over 40) had grown in relative size.
(3) Racial Distribution
Table 11-20 shows the black population by planning sub-
basin. Based on block data, there were 44,990 blacks within the
EIS Study Area in 1970. However, this number may be less than
the actual number because some data were suppressed when the per-
centage was too small to be shown. The South Buffalo subbasin
contains the largest number of blacks (64 percent of the total).
Ninety-two percent of the total number of blacks live in the
South Buffalo and North Buffalo subbasins. A breakdown by cen-
sus tracts and subbasins is found in the Technical Reference
Document (RA-R-406).
(4) Households
Increases in the number of households have definitely
been occurring on the fringes of the city (see Table 11-21).
11-86
-------
TABLE 11—19
AGE OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AND AREA, 1960 AND 1970
0—19
20—39
40—64
65+
TOTAL
Median Age
United States
Number
69,084,404 38.6
46,133,576 25.7
47,900,440 26.7
16,176,687 9.0
179,325,657 100.0
29.5
1.960
North Carolina
Number
1,929,240 42.3
1,227,725 26.9
1,087,023 23.9
312,167 6.9
4,556,155 100.0
25.5
1970
Gull ford
Number
98,546
72,177
60,770
15,027
246 ,520
27.0
Co.
40.0
29.3
24.6
6.1
100.0
EIS Area
Number %
64,526 40.0
47,266 29.3
39,684 24.6
9,840 6.1
161,316 100.0
27.0
0—19
20—39
40—64
65+
TOTAL
Median Age
76,970,400
52,385,301
53,790,723
20,065,502
28.1
1,979,871
1,387,450
1,300,489
414,249
5,082,059
26.5
Source: US—557
US —558
US—559
39.0
27.3
25.6
8.1
100.0
110,191
81,005
75,031
22,363
288,590
27.0
38.1
28.1
26.0
7.8
100.0
70,622
52 ,086
48,194
14 ,458
185 ,360
27.0
38.1
28.1
26.0
7.8
100.0
-------
TABLE 11-20
1970 BLACK POPULATION BY PLANNING SUBBASINS
1970 Black Population
Reedy Fork 463
Deep River 40
Horsepen Creek 296
North Buffalo 12,630
South Buffalo 28,752
Reedy Fork (East) 754
North Buffalo (East) 383
South Buffalo (East) 686
Alarnance 884
Buffalo 102
Total 44,990
Source: US—664
Large increases have occurred in Alarnance, Reedy Fork, and Horse-
pen Creek. A careful examination of the North and South Buffalo
subbasins shows that increases fluctuate within the subbasins.
The largest increases occurred along the northernmost edge of
North Buffalo and along the southernmost edge of South Buffalo.
A breakdown by census tracts and subbas ins can be found in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
(5) Income
Per capita income increased significantly within the
Study Area between 1969 and 1974. All subbasin areas showed at
least a 13 percent increase (Table 11-22). Deep River,. Horsepen
Creek, and Reedy Fork showed the largest increases.
11-88
-------
TABLE 11—21
1970 AND 1975 (ESTIMATED) HOUSEHOLDS BY PLANNING SUBBASINS
1970
Households
Within
Subbas i.n
1975
(Estimated)
Households
Within
Subbasin
Reedy Fork
Deep River
Horsepen Creek
North Buffalo
South Buffalo
Reedy Fork (East)
North Buffalo (East)
South Buffalo (East)
A laznance
Buffalo
2,545
175
2,093
26,471
18,548
780
875
916
3,016
389
55,808
3,377
181
2,738
28,660
20,633
859
1,025
1,170
3,892
449
62 ,984
‘ -I
I;4
Co
Chan&e
Number Percent
Total
832
32.7
6
3.4
645
30.8
2,189
8.3
2,085
11.2
79
10.1
150
17.1
254
27.7
876
29.0
60
15.4
Source: CR—272
-------
TABLE 11-22
AVERAGE PER CAPITA INCOME BY PLANNING SUBBASINS
Average Per Capita Income Change
1969 1974* Number Percent
Reedy Fork $ 2,791 $ 4,361 1,570 56.2
Deep River 2,847 5,228 2,381 83.6
Horsepen Creek 3,393 5,655 2,262 66.7
North Buffalo 4,337 6,234 1,897 43.7
South Buffalo 2,699 3,513 814 30.1
Reedy Fork (East) 2,249 2,546 297 13.2
North Buffalo (East) 2,557 2,960 403 15.8
South Buffalo (East) 2,470 3,032 562 22.8
Alamance 2,694 3,316 622 23.1
Buffalo 2,639 3,162 523 19.8
*Es tima ted
NOTE: Average Per Capita Income calculated by finding the average per
capita income of those census tracts within each subbasin.
Source: GR—291
The distribution of households by income follows a defin-
ite pattern. The eastern portion of the Study Area and the areas
along either side of the Southern Railway running east-west through
Greensboro have annual household incomes of less than $10,000.
The southernmost and northwestern portions of the Study Area have
the higher incomes.
In 1970, Greensboro’s median income was $10,166, which
was above that of North Carolina ($7,774) and the United States
($9,590). Around 18 percent of Greensboro’s households earn less
than $5,000 annually.
II .?90
-------
(6) Employment
Paralleling the steady population growth of the city
and county has been an increase in the number of persons employed.
Between 1970 and 1974, almost 20,000 new jobs were created within
Guilford County. Unemployment fluctuated within the county from
a high of 3.8 percent in 1971 to a low of 2.6 percent in 1972 and
1973. In 1975, however, the Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem
SMSA was reported to have an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.
Although data are not available for 1974-1976, Greensboro-Guilford
County experienced an economic slump common in many areas of the
country in that period.
Table 11-23 shows a breakdown of non-farm employment
by industry group for Guilford County during 1970 and 1974. The
greatest numerical growth was in Service and Miscellaneous fol-
lowed by Wholesale and Retail Trade. These two categories ab-
sorbed almost 56 percent of the growth of the county. Manufactur-
ing continued to have the largest proportion of employment, while
Wholesale and Retail Trade continued to share approximately 20
percent of total employment.
b. Current Economic Conditions
The Greensboro urbanized area has recently experienced
net gains in both manufacturers and retail stores. Tables 11-24
and -11-25 show the breakdowns by subbasins within the EIS Study
Area for new manufacturing locations by number of employees and
retail openings and closings. North and South Buffalo continue
to not only attract the greatest number of new manufacturers but
also the largest (101+ employees) employers. At the same time,
these subbasins have had the largest numbers of retail openings
and closings and the largest number of net gains within the Study
Area.
11-91
-------
TABLE 11—23
NON—FARN EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY GROUP FOR GUILFORD COUNTY, 19 70,1974
Category Employees Change
1970 1974 Number Percent
Manufacturing:
• Food 2,870 2,730 — 140 — 4.9
• Textiles 20,010 20,550 540 2.7
• Apparel 4,790 4,670 — 120 — 2.5
• Paper 1,820 1,460 — 360 —19.8
• Printing 2,050 2,290 240 11.7
• Chemicals 1,900 2,530 630 33.1
• Other 25,140 26,850 1,710 6.8
Total Manufacturing 58,580 71,080 2,500 4.3
Non—Manufacturing:
1 _ f • Construction 8,930 10,460 1,710 19.1
• Transportation, Communication, 6,660 7,270 670 10.2
Public Utilities
• Wholesale & Retail Trade 28,990 34,280 5,290 18.2
• Finance, Insurance, Real 7,670 8,960 1,290 16.8
Estate
• Service & Miscellaneous 16,430 21,860 5,430 33.0
• Government 15 730 18,080 2,350 14.9
Total Non—Manufacturing 84,350 101,090 16,740 19.8
TOTAL NON—FARM 142,930 162,170 19,240 13.5
Source: N0—119
-------
TABLE 11—24
NEW MANUFACTURING LOCATIONS WITHIN THE EIS STUDY AREA,
1970—1975, BY SUBBASIN, A1’ D NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Total New
Subbasin 1—10 11—100 101+ Manufactures
Reedy Fork
Deep River 1 2 3
Horsapen Creek —— 3 —— 3
North Buffalo 51 15 1 67
South Buffalo 31 27 5 63
Reedy Fork (East)
North Buffalo (East)
South Buffalo (East)
Alaxnance
Buffalo
Total 82 46 8 136
Source: GR—293
TABLE 11-25
RETAIL OPENINGS AND CLOSINGS
WITHIN THE EIS STUDY AREA, 1970-1975, BY SUBBASIN
1970 — 1975
No. of No. of Net Gain (+)
Subbasin Openipgs C losinZs Net Loss (—)
Reedy Fork 1 5 — 4
Deep River 1 —— + 1
Horsepen Creek 11 5 + 6
North Buffalo 263 196 +67
South Buffalo 161 108 +53
Reedy Fork (East) 3 2 + 3
North Buffalo (East) 4 1 + 3
South Buffalo (East) 8 3 + 5
A lamance 4 1 + 3
Buffalo —- ——
Total 456 321 +135
Source: GR—292
11-93
-------
Major revenue producers and employers are shown in Table
11-26. For each, the 1976 assessed valuation for real property
was calculated and the total revenue produced. Two factors should
be noted. First, manufacturing firms not only constitute a major
portion of the highest employers within the county but also con-
tribute significant revenue to the economy. Second, although ser-
vices such as governments, hospitals, and colleges are major em-
ployers, they are exempt from property tax (see Table 11-26).
c. Population Projections
In preparing population projections for the EIS Study
Area, projections by OBERS for the Standard Metropolitan Statis-
tical Area (SMSA), as disaggregated by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM), projections by the Greensboro
Planning Department for the “701” Study Area (which closely coin-
cides with the EIS Study Area), and projections in the Hazen and
Sawyer Environmental Assessment (1{A-544) were carefully analyzed.
Of most importance was the directive by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) that base projections be made assuming that
sewage is not a constraint to development. Therefore, projections
were made assuming that sewer services would be available through-
out the Study Area. Existing land use data, number of building
permits from 1970 to 1975, and environmentally sensitive lands
were other critical considerations in the projections. The first
step undertaken was to determine population projections and land
use projections for the entire Study Area. For land use, popu-
lation was converted to number of dwellings, single-family and
multi-family components, and acres of residential landneeded.
Finally, population and land use were allocated to the subbasins.
Several assumptions were made in the projections:
11-94
-------
TABLE 11-26
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, ASSESSED VALUATION, AND REVENUE PRODUCED
FOR THE MAJOR REVENUE PRODUCERS AND EMPLOYERS,
GUILFORD COUNTY, BY INDUSTRY TYPE
Estimated 1976 Revenue
Number of Assessed Revenue Per
Name of Firm Employees Valuation* Produced Employee
Manufacturing :
Cone Mills Corp. 5—6,000 $25,097,040 $381,100 $ 69.29
Lorillard 3,000 9,611,380 162,913 54.30
Burlington 2,300 26,604,915 381,051 165.67
Guilford Mills 1,000+ 5,721,128 68,712 68.71
J.p. Stevens 1,000 4,789,290 75,256 75.26
Blue Bell, Inc. 2,000 3,602,270 58,120 29.06
Carolina Steel 500+ 4,130,110 55,639 111.28
Gilbarco Corp. 1,005 5,837,770 43,199 42.98
Greensboro Manu. 1,000+ — — — —
Bates Nitewear 500+ 213,550 3,620 7.24
Ciba—Geigy 650+ 10,209,250 75,548 116.23
Transportation,
Counicati i Public
Utilities :
Duke Power Company 281 99,875,670 ** —
Piedmont Natural Gas 150+ 21,875,670 ** —
Southern Bell 1,200 113,750,982 ** —
Southern Railway 100+ 16,568,127 ** —
Western Electric 1,500+ 15,295,950 125,627 83.75
Wholesale & Retail Trade :
Sears, Roebuck. 2,200 18,983,710 320,041 145.47
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Jefferson Standard 600+ 11,195,050 182,298 303.83
Life
Services :
Moses H. Cone 1,000+ Exempt
Memorial
N.C.A. & I Univ. 840+ Exempt
Federal Post Office 800 Exempt
Wesley Long Hospital 520 Exempt
U.N.C. Greensboro 1,000+ Exempt
Greensboro City 2,600 Exempt
Schools
City of Greensboro 2,613*** Exempt
Guilford County 1,854 Exempt
*AsseSSed valuation only for rca]. property. Persona ]. property not included.
**AssesS€d valuation is determined by the state for public utilities and
includes real and personal property. For the entire county, the valuation
of all public utilities is $340,271,158. Total revenue paid is $2,949,325.
***Of these employees, 1,887 are permanent.
Source: GR—294
GU— 106
11-95
-------
(1) Population was converted to dwelling units by
dividing by an average household size (HA-544):
2.2 for multi-family units and 3.0 for single-S
family units. Based on discussions with the
Greensboro Planning Department, the factor
for multi-family units was lowered to 2.0 (BR-358)
(2) As in the Environmental Assessment (HA-544),
dwelling unit requirements were converted to
residential acreage by using an average gross
density of ten dwelling units per acre for
multi-family housing units and two dwelling
units per acre for single-family housing.
These figures are consistent with those now
being used by the Greensboro Planning Department.
(3) The breakdown of population into multi-family
and single-family components, by five-year
intervals, was prepared and coordinated with
the Greensboro Planning Department and is
simi1a to those figures used in the Environ-
mental Assessment (HA-544). Details of this
breakdown are found in the Technical Reference
Document (RA-R-406).
(4) To reiterate, sewer service is assumed where
growth is projected. Available capacities
and constraints on the system were not assumed
as deterrents to growth.
Table 11-27 shows the population projections by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, OBERS (Series E), the Greensboro
Planning Department, and the Environmental Assessment (HA—544).
Projections used herein are those of OBERS (Series E) as disaggregated
11-96
-------
TABLE 11-27
POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 1970—2000, BY OBERS
GREENSBORO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HAZEN AND SAWYER, AND RADIAN ’
OBERS Hazen &
BEA Data ( Series E) Greensboro Planning Dept. Sawyer — Radian
Guilford EIS Study 701 Planning 201 EIS Study
SMSA County Area 2 Area Greensboro Study Area Area
1970 724,576 296,200 191,423 185,397 144,076 166,430 185,360
1975 NA 299,3O0 213,500 196,771 153,995 175,160 196,617
1980 831,400 327,500 227,600 212,570 162,887 194,960 227,600
1985 NA NA NA 234,086 176,617 213,670 245,0506
1990 963,300 375,600 262,500 257,505 191,362 234,130 262,500
1995 NA NA NA 279,100 203,564 249,380 274,8506
2000 1,060,900 412,100 287,200 299,138 213,668 265,620 287,200
‘Except for 1970 and 1975, data are same as OBERS (Series E) disaggregation from NCDEM.
2 These data were disaggregated from OBERS Series E by NCDEM by applying a projection factor based
on 1960 and 1970 population within the 201 Study Area and similar county population data.
3 OBERS data are actually for 1972.
‘OBERS data for 1974.
5 Data provided are for 1973.
6 Midpolnt between 1980 and 1990, and 1990 and 2000.
Source: US—560
GR—291
HA—544
-------
by NCDEM, except for 1970 and 1975 population. As discussed in
an earlier section of this report, these numbers appear to be
high and, therefore, were recalculated, using census tract and
block data. However, other projections appear to be acceptable.
Projections are higher than those in the Environmental Assessment
(HA-544) because of the increase in the Study Area, but are com-
patible with figures not yet released by the Greensboro Planning
Department. Since OBERS did not project for 1985 and 1995, a
midpoint figure was used for these years.
From these totals, projections were broken down by sub-
basin for five-year intervals for the year 2000. Emphasis was
placed on the allocation of population by subbasins for the year
2000 (Table 11-28) . The methodology used is presented in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
Population growth from 1975-2000 is also shown in Table
11-28. North and South Buffalo will continue to have a major in-
fluence on the total growth. North Buffalo (East) and South Buf-
falo (East) will undergo significant growth.
Population density in the year 2000 is shown in Figure
11-19. The urban area will continue to expand; areas to the north,
east, and south will increase substantially in density. Some re-
development within the central city is anticipated with density
increases. Generally, the areas shown in the year 2000 are the
same as those of the Greensboro Planning Department, 1 given sewage
east of the present city limits.
Projected population characteristics were also deter-
mined for the Study Area. These include age distribution, per
1 Tentative (draft) data provided to the Piedmont Council of
Governments by Greensboro Planning Department.
11-98
-------
TABLE 11—28
POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY SUBBASINS, 1975 TO 2000
WITH CHANGE FROM 1975 TO 2000
Population Projections 1975 — 2000 Change
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 No. Percent
Reedy Fork 10,729 17,000 20,150 23,800 24,000 25,000 14,271 133.0
Deep River 596 600 600 600 600 600 4 0.7
Horsepen Creek 8,080 13,500 16,000 17,800 18,000 18,700 10,620 131.4
North Buffalo 85,539 91,300 93,000 97,000 102,000 106,500 20,961 24.5
South Buffalo 67,327 71,100 77,000 83,150 89,250 94,500 27,123 40.4
Reedy Fork (East) 2,857 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,200 3,250 393 13.8
NoitI 1’ itff.i1o (East) 3,147 6,500 7,500 7,800 8,000 8,150 5,003 158.9
‘ -4
South BuffaLo (East) 3,670 8,500 11,000 12,000 12,500 13,000 9,330 254.2
Alamance 13,169 14,500 15,000 15,300 15,400 15,500 2,331 17.7
Buffalo 1,503 1,600 1,700 1,850 1,900 2,000 497 33.1
Totals 196,617 227,600 245,050 262,500 274,850 287,200 90,583 46.1
Source: ER—038
-------
. . \ —
( D —
4• 4 — .._
4 # 1 4 .
— I
- /
——4 .s... i •1.•• 4.
I .• . -. . . S
I 4.
0• 4. — ‘ . 4 • -...... ....... ..‘ - I REEDY FORK (EAST)
4 4 / \_—___ f• _ ’ _ -S
: -.-‘ . . S
:-: — ‘P- S 4.
/ S4_S_ F_I ‘A
REEDY FORK. 4 5__•_ I. _• _ •‘ :FF! J N ._/ . ,
/ . ‘ _ • -(:k. / (.;
1 5 5 ._S. ( > — \ // ‘4.
s -: -:
—— / / .. I - ...‘ a
- ( _1- . 1i — J8UFFALO
/ , .A ,__( ,_..—_-- ,.. • - /
: / . . A’ s i ” NORTH BUFFALO (EAST) - ,‘ /
/ ,— 1 ,I 4 - S -, ,.. /
/ I
• I . / 5 J - , —— . 5 — ” — 4.
‘ 7 / , ,r- ,‘\ ( St . —, 5
,/ HO SEPENrCREEK ‘ / NORTH BUFFALO /‘ s L c - - - ” /
I ’ / S%_ . . ,_/ / I / ‘t ”
7 u /5
/ — 4 4 . • L I
, , ftFI , / . .. “,T SOUTH BUFFALO I
4. . 55 ’ S.-. —— F (EAST). - — ‘S.
4. _ , ____ _ , .. I — . 5 -’
- - • .•• /
% 4 . 4 . 4 . 4 . . 4 .%_ __ 4 ._ r’ _J
N - -‘ - 1_ f • — -•
N )
I C
SOUTH BUFFALO 4 _ I _ • •“ - - - / 5- 5 )
/ : - ,J ALAMANCE . -I
• ._• __\_>__ . 4 . _ I J- - . - i / )
55 I, /
, c*N -’ i p
,‘ :..../ / : -. ./1
PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE .: ‘ .. .‘
DEEP ••••%_ . ::::: , _‘ - ‘ _ i /
LESS THAN 2000 RIVERT’ , \ I . ( _/
MORE THAN 2000 4.4.4.4. .. •
POLECAT :: :•:•: -: : :- . ..
MAJOR HIGHWAYS CREEK -:• - - ) SCALE IN MILES
4. ___________
PLANNING SUBBASIN BOUNDARY :::: .:.: : .: :•:: - .• 1 0 1 2 3
S •4. I
— - GREENSBORO CITY LIMITS \ ‘ ‘:: ‘u \,. . / GREENSBORO - GUILFORD COUNTY
:::::::..: REGIONAL WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
P 0 P U LAT’ ON D E N S’T V 2000 ERIC HILL ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS
U I I ATLANTA, GA WINSTON - SALEM. N. C.
-------
capita income, and dwelling units by type (as a percent of the
population). Table 11-29 shows the age distribution for the
Study Area from 1975 to 2000. Tiiese figures are based on census
data and projections provided by the Greensboro Planning Depart-
ment for the Study Area. Obvious conclusions from this table
are that: (1) persons over 65 will increase and constitute a
larger proportion of the population; and (2) the school age popu-
lation (under 20) will increase, but will constitute a smaller
percentage of total population.
TABLE 11—2 9
PROJECTED AGE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
0—19 71,481 73,089 74,150 79,758 88,401 92,190
20—39 55,356 72,352 81,445 90,152 88,826 82,246
40—64 53,320 61,435 65,701 65,332 67,096 79,760
65+ 16,460 20,724 23,754 27,258 30,527 33,004
TOTALS 196,617 227,600 245,050 262,500 274,850 287,200
Source: ER—038
Per capita income projections ere taken from OBERS.
These are presented in Table 11-30. Between 1975-1980, a 40.4
percent increase is expeèted; for 1980-1990, a 28.9 percent in-
crease is expected; and for 1990-2000, a 32 4 percent increase
is expected.
Useful in the land use projections is a breakdown of
population by housing type, calculations of dwelling unit require-
ments, and acreage required. Table 11-31 shows these projections.
11-101
-------
TABLE 11-30
PROJECTED PER CAPITA INCOME, 1980 — 2000
Per Capita Change
Incoine* Number Percent
1980 $4,780 1,376 40.4
1990 6,166 1,386 28.9
2000 8,165 1,999 32.4
*In 1976 dollars
NOTE: 201 Study Area per capita income assumed same as SMSA.
Source: US—560
Projected employment to the year 2000 is shown in Table
11-32. Based on data provided by t ie Greensboro Planning Depart-
merit, employment may be expected to increase almost 56 percent,
whereas population will only increase approximately 46 percent.
Manufacturing and wholesale and retail trade will continue to have
the largest percentages of coal employment (50 percent).
Projected per capita earnings by industry type are
shown in Table 11-33. Services and government are two types of
industries which will maintain significant increases to the year
2000. Other industry types will increase, but their percentage
increases will level off.
2. Land Use
a. Present General Land Use
Land use for the Study Area was based upon aerial photo-
graphs arid maps provided by the Environmental Protection Agency.
From the data provided, there are seven major land use categories:
residential, corr nercial/services/institutional, industrial (in-
cluding industrial/commercial complexes and transportation),
11-102
-------
TABLE 11-31
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSING TYPE AND DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS
*Distributiofl by housing type was determined using calculated percentages for the City of Greensboro
of housing types as a percentage of the non—institutional population (See Technical Reference Document—
RA-R-406).
**Single_family units are based on 3.0 people per dwelling unit.
Multi—family units are based on 2.0 people per dwelling unit.
***Single—family acreage based on two dwelling units per acre.
****Multi —family acreage based on ten dwelling units per acre.
Population Distribution Population Dwelling
By Housing Type* Change by Type Required by Type
227,600
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
245,050
262 ,500
178,225
274,850
188,055
Acreage
Multi— Single— Multi— Single— Multi—
Family Family** Family** Family*** Family****
287,200
200,366
Single—
Multi—
Single—
Population
Family
Family
Family
196,617
152,378
44,239
——
,
171,223
56,377
18,845
12,138
6,282
6,069
3,141
607
66,825
74,445
7,002
9,830
10,448
7,620
2,334
3,277
5,224
3,810
1,167
1,639
522
381
74,484
12,311
39
3,104
20
2,052
2
76,108
10,726
1,624
3,575
812
1,788
81
211,092
Source: ER—038
-------
TABLE 11—32
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR NON—FARM INDUSTRIES
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Manufacturing 35,493 37,618 38,908 41,271 43,629
Contract Construction 9,511 11,230 12,949 13,145 13,341
Transportation, Communication, 6,018 6,499 7,116 7,781 8,444
and Public Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade 29,908 31,330 36,151 37,286 38,421
Finance, Insurance, and 8,195 9,227 9,941 11,028 12,115
Real Estate
Services and Miscellaneous 16,566 18,530 22,487 23,268 24,138
Government 16,394 18,145 21,933 22,863 23,791
Total Non-Farm Employment 122,085 132,579 149,485 156,642 163,879
NOTE: Projections provided in this table are for the Greensboro “701” Study. However, this
area closely corresponds to the EIS Study Area, and the figures would be similar.
Source: GR—296
-------
TABLE 11—33
PROJECTED PER CAPITA EARNINGS, BY INDUSTRY TYPE, FOR THE STUDY AREA
Per Capita Earnings 1970—1980 1980—1990 1990—2000
in Thousands of 1967 Dollars Change Change Change
1970 1980 1985* ].99’J 1995* 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Manufacturing 1.27 1.73 1.94 2.15 2.44 2.74 .46 36.2 .42 24.3 .59 27.4
Contract Construction .19 .25 .28 .31 .35 .39 .06 31.6 .06 24.0 .08 25.8
Transportation, .21 .31 .36 .41 .48 .54 .10 47.6 .10 32.2 .13 31.7
Communication, and
PUblic Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade .47 .62 .69 .76 .87 .97 .15 31.9 .16 22.6 .21 27.6
Finance, Insurance, .15 .23 .27 .31 .37 .43 .08 53.3 .08 34.8 .12 38.7
and Real Estate
Services and Miscellaneous .35 .59 .72 .86 1.06 1.26 .24 68.6 .27 45.8 .40 46.5
Government .25 .37 .44 .51 .62 .72 .12 48.0 .14 27.8 .21 41.2
NOTE: Data for 1985 and 1995 were not provided in the OBERS projections. For theae years, intermediate points between 1980,
1990, and 2000 projections were used.
Source: US—560
-------
public and quasi—public areas, agricultural and forest land, water,
and extraction areas. Figure 11-20 depicts the existing land use
for the Study Area by subbasin.
It should be noted that additional areas have been added
to the Study Area (namely, Alamance Creek and other minor areas)
for which no land use data were available. To determine land
use acreage for these areas, land use acreage within the remain-
der of the subbasin was measured and the proportions of land use
were assumed to be the same. Therefore, if the remainder of the
subbasin had 52 percent of its land in residential uses, 52 per-
cent of the area with no land use data was assumed to be
residential. Table 11-34 summarizes current land use acreage
for the Study Area by subbasins.
Much economic activity has recently moved north and
northwestward, so that the focal point of Greensboro (once the
Central Business District) has moved westward. The transporta-
tion system has had a major effect on this development. Inter-
state 40, skirting the southern edge of the city, from east
to west, and the Southern Railroad (also east to west), have
tended to pull development, particularly that requiring transpor-
tation and distribution, linearly along the east-west corridor.
U.S. 200, U.S. 29, and U.S. 29A have some development generally
in a north-south direction. However, north-south roads provide
little connection between major centers (Winston-Salem, Raleigh,
and the like), and are, therefore, not as attractive.
Commercial land use is located in the central area and
along major transportation routes. Industrial uses are concen-
trated near the airport and along Interstate 40, along Market
Street, along Interstate 85 to the south, and where rail access
is available. For areas outside the city limits, development is
stripped along transportation routes. Land use patterns become
11-106
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 11-34
EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE BY SUBBASIN
- Transportation &
Residential Conunercial Industrial Cousnunication Recreation Agriculture Water Extraction Forest Total
Reedy Fork Inside City 26 6 —— —— 109 —— 19 —— 557 717
Outside City* 6,024 106 27 346 1,023 14,405 3,387 28,762 52,179
‘Deep River Inside City 19 —— — -- —— —— —— — — —— —— 19
Outside City* 316 157 630 73 331 1,194 —— —— 1,574 4,275
Rorsepen Creek Inside City 640 109 —— —— 51 —— 6 532 1,338
Outside City* 1,728 128 448 762 1,030 1,932 32 13 3,610 9,683
North Buffalo Inside City 11,789 2,560 993 736 979 51 154 —— 3,030 20,262
Outside City* 26 19 6 13 —— —— 77 141
South Buffalo Inside City 9,498 1,805 1,139 640 384 134 51 —— 2,381 16,032
Outside City* 1,197 69 164 103 137 309 6 —— 1,741 3,706
Reedy Fork (East) Outside City 653 83 77 237 26 8,435 128 —— 12,172 21,811
North Buffalo Outside City 781 96 154 160 2,393 70 — — 4,916 8,570
(East)
South Buffalo Outside City 960 45 90 154 58 2,752 38 —— 3,538 7,635
(East)
Alainance* Outside City 5,834 86 206 1,493 35 15,272 292 172 21,397 44,787
Buffalo Outside City 173 13 6 4,693 38 —— 4,263 8,986
Totals 37,664 5,263 3,740 6,717 4,329 51,482 4,221 185 88,540 200,141
*For portions of these subbasins, no land use was provided. Therefore, it was assumed that these areas would have similar characteristics as the
remainder of the subbasin. Therefore, total acres with no land use were prorated to each appropriate category.
Source: US—56l
-------
rural with agricultural and forest land predominant. Population
densities are relatively low.
Land use planning within the county is administered
and/or coordinated by three public bodies; the Greensboro Planning
Department, the Guilford County Planning Board, and the Piedmont
Triad Council of Governments. The current land use plans of both
the city and county are outdated and do not adequately meet the
land use planning needs of the region. Revisions are now under-.
way and are expected to be complete in the summer of 1977.
Both the city and county have zoning ordinances. In
addition, the city has subdivision regulations. The county has
issued its “Land Use Goals and Policies’ t (July, 1976) which con-
tains several important goals or policies around which its land
use plan will be developed. These goals and policies are listed
in Table 11-35.
b. Future General Land Use
General land use for the EIS Study Area for the year
2000 is shown in Figure 11-21. Land use was determined using
(1) population, dwelling unit, and needed residential acreage
projections; (2) existing land use patterns and trends; (3) zon-
ing, and (4) land use goals and policies for Guilford County.
Three assumptions were made. First, future land uses will not
be developed on environmentally sensitive land (Section II.A.l.h).
Environmentally sensitive lands were defined as lands having at
least one of the following characteristics: slopes exceeding
15 percent, erosive soils, floodplain or wetlands, areas with
existing and proposed noise problems from airport, reservoir
buffer zones, sanitary landfill areas, and quarries. Second,
the ratio of developed acreage for commercial, industrial, and
recreational land uses to current developed land will continue
11-109
-------
TABLE 11-35
GUILFORD COUNTY LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
cOALS: POLICIES :
1. Crowth ahould be encouraged in areas of the county which arc better I. Proh emq of residential development are complicated by a limited water
equipped to accoiiusodare it. s ippiy, poor soil types, and other environmental considerations that:
2. rropor land use planning should 1ncrei e the social and economic are a natural deterrent to the development of much of the county.
There is a need to assign priorities to potential growth arena and
opportunities For nil citizens, then to provide public utilities accordingly. The interlocking rein—
3. f cvelopment should increase the individual’s opportunities and tionship of cormuercial and residential development muSt be incorporated
foster a sense of comsunhty. Into flexible and Innovative design approaches applied through our land
4. coordinate cottusunity facilities and services with other development, use controls.
2. Since the provision of roads, water, and sewer stimulate growth, luturS
5. Encourage the location of low water—consuming industries in
GoLitord County. placement of these items must be carefully analyzed. The public pro—
vimion of facilities and services sho,ild balance such considerations
6. Preserve an ,I protect water qualiiy and quantity. as the solution of existing problems, the encouragement of new growth,
and the planning of future needs. Too often the construction of cow—
7. Ensure the future provisions of adequate water and newer services
m inlty facilities creates a demand far in exceSs of what was planned.
to county citizens.
3. The physical characteristics of land must nerve as one of the basic
R. Promote a balanced, safe, efficient, end environmentally sound guidelines for determining thp location and density of development.
‘ - 4
transportation system throughout the county. Water quantity and quality have been identified as the county’s two
9. Identify Cuilford County’s natural and environmentally critical major problems. Areas designated for water impoundment for public use
f... t arena that must he preserved and protected. have been the areag most susceptible to new growth and development over
the years. If development is to continue to occur in these arena,
10. P ’rntect historic buildings and sitea, efforts must be made to minimize those factors which could affect the
Il. Utilize floodpleinm to protect the health, safety, and personal quality and quantity of our water supply.
property of citizens.
In addition to these goals and policies, the city has provided
12. Acquire and protect selected open space areas in the county.
to the COG a map showing tentative urbanization to the year 2000 given an
13. Incorporate environmental protection into all public and private
plans, especially in municipal watersheds, additional sewage treatment plant. This des riptlon of growth and conver-
sations with the Planning Department were relied on heavily in planning
for Future land uses.
Source: LA—262
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
in the year 2000 (residential - 73 percent; commercial - 10.5
percent; industrial - 8 percent; recreational - 8.5 percent).
Table 11-36 shows the net developable land within each of the
planning subbasins. The county and city are presently revising
their land use plans to be completed during the summer of 1977.
iowever, a great deal of data has already been developed and is
incorporated herein. Efforts have been made to coordinate the
recommendations in the EIS with the city and county. Third,
future development is expected first on vacant lands within the
city or where public services are available, and generally along
major traffic arteries.
Table 11-37 shows the additional proposed acres and
Figure 11-21 shows the transition areas that are proposed to
absorb the majority of future development. Both Figure 11-21
and Table 11-37 are based on the assumption that sewer service
will be provided east of the city limits, opening this land for
development.
The trend in growth has been to the north and west of
the city. One factor that has contributed to the direction of
this growth is soil types. Septic tanks are perceived to be
more suitable for lands in the north and west than east and south-
east, although this difference is a matter of degree.
Though trends i1l still exert considerable pressures
for growth to the west, over 60 percent of the existing vacant
land suitable for development and lying within five miles of the
Central Business District is located in the southeast quadrant.
This land is now well serviced by major streets including 1-85,
U.S. 70, U.S. 200, and U.S. 421. With the continued increase
in fuel costs, people may choose to locate closer to their places
of employment. The city’s policies and programs to upgrade hous-
ing and other conditions in the low-income areas, and a lessening
of the stigma attached to black-occupied areas, may make this
11-112
-------
Reedy Fork
Deep River
l orsepen Creek
North Buffalo
South Buffalo
Reedy Fork (East)
North Buffalo (East)
South Buffalo (East)
Alainance
Buffalo
TABLE 11-36
DEVELOPED, VACANT, ENVI1 )NHENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND, AND NET DEVELOPABLE LAND
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
*Vacant land within the city wan taken from the Environmental Assessment (HA—544) as prepared by the Greensboro Planning Department.
**Environmentally sensitive land is based on data developed by the Greensboro Planning Department.
***A nap showing the total environmentally sensitive lands within these areas was not available.
Developed
Vacant
Environmentally Net
Sensitive Land ** Developable Land
Acreage
Within
City
Outside
City
Within
City*
Outside
City
Within
City**
Outside
City
Within
City
Outside
City
52,896
141
5,526
706
43,266
78
lO,458***
628
32,808
4,294
11,021
19
800
1,507
4,096
674
2,768
5,555
——
69
1,159
3,053
605
1,609
2,502
20,403
19,738
17,037
13,466
51
1,650
3,892
3,188
90
2,056
779
934
13
435
3,113
2,254
77
1,621
21,811
——
1,076
——
20,735
——
627
——
20,108
8,570
——
1,191
——
7,379
——
1,229
——
6,150
7,635
——
1,307
——
6,328
——
1,549
——
4,779
44,787
——
7,946
——
36,841
——
3,367***
33,474
8,986
——
192
——
8,756
——
653
——
8,103
Total
Source: US—561
GR-295
-------
TABLE 11—37
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ACRES BY LAND USE AND PLANNING SUBBASIN
Subbasin Residential Commercial Industrial Parks
Reedy Fork 1,937 280 200 200
Deep River 0 50 250 0
Horsepen Creek 1,440 210 150 150
North Buffalo 2,846 400 250 300
South Buffalo 3,690 530 300 400
Reedy Fork (East) 53 0 0 100
North Buffalo (East) 680 95 75 100
South Buffalo (East) 1,268 185 125 150
Alamance 316 50 50 50
Buffalo 70 0 0 0
Source: ER-038
close-in vacant land in the southeast quadrant more attractive
to developers in the future. Attraction to this area should be
particularly true if adequate sanitary sewer service becomes
available. Therefore, a greater percentage of potential growth
has been assigned to these areas than a straight projection of
past trends would indicate.
For Buffalo and Reedy Fork (East), little additional
growth is shown because of the distance from the central city,
public services, and employment centers. The Deep River subbasin
has no residential growth; however, this subbasin will absorb
additional commercial and industrial growth because of its loca-
tion near the airport, 1-85, and the Southern Railway.
The additional acres needed for various land uses are
directly related to projected population. -Residential land use
11-114
-------
will continue to increase within the city and spread to outlying
areas. Some redevelopment will occur with lower density uses
intensifying.
Commercial uses will intensify in the core area and
along major transportation arteries. Scattered neighborhood com-
mercial uses will be provided conveniently to their customers.
Industrial uses will intensify in the Deep River,
South Buffalo, Reedy Fork, Horsepen Creek, and North Buffalo
basins. Industrial parks should be encouraged. Around the air-
port, industrial uses should increase. Since a large portion of
this area is subjected to noise not conducive to residential hab-
itation, commercial and industrial uses are best suited to this
area. In the southern part of the Study Area, industries should
also begin to locate. Large tracts of land are presently zoned
for industrial uses.
3. Community Services and Facilities
a. Police
At present, the Greensboro Police Department has 366
sworn personnel which gives a ratio of officers to population of
2.5 per 1,000. There are 76 civilian personnel in the department.
The county also provides law enforcement officers. The
1975-1976 budget authorized 214 full-time positions in the county’s
law enforcement system which serves the unincorporated areas of
Guilfore County. This gives a ratio of officers to population
of .72 per 1,000.
11-115
-------
b. Fire Protection
The City of Greensboro’s fire department in 1972 had
five truck companies and 11 engine companies housed in ten fire
stations. Since 1972, Greensboro has built additional fire sta-
tions and is planning to continue to expand service. Currently,
the department has a total manpower of 283 personnel, of which
263 are permanently assigned to firefighting, 12 are assigned to
fire prevention, five are assigned to administration, and three
are assigned to fire training. Therefore, there are roughly 1.8
firefighting personnel per 1,000 residents.
The Greensboro Fire Department had a Class III rating
as determined by the American Insurance Association.
Guilford County employs a Fire Marshall who is charged
by County Ordinances and North Carolina General Statutes with
providing fire protection services, including fire prevention,
fire investigation, and firefighting. In addition, the Fire
Marshall coordinates the activities of all rural volunteer fire
departments in the county. There are over 1,000 volunteer fire-
fighters, and the county employs 33 people full-time for the
county fire department.
c. Solid Waste Disposal
Refuse collection and disposal is administered in the
city by the Sanitation Division of the Department of Public Works.
The Sanitation Division employs 120 people, of which 14 are tempor-
ary employees. Disposal of municipal wastewater treatment residuals
is discussed in Section II.B.8.b. and will not be addressed in this
section.
In addition to refuse collection and disposal, the di-
vision also has the responsibility of sweeping streets and remov-
ing leaves during the “leaf season.” There are 32 additional
11-116
-------
employees involved in street cleaning, waste disposal, and other
kinds of sanitation jobs.
As described in the Environmental Assessment (HA-544),
the city currently provides collection services to all property
except industrial establishments. In residential areas, the curb
collection method is used, and garbage is collected two days each
week. The city does not provide services for the disposal of in-
dustrial solid waste or pretreatment sludges. These wastes are
processed for ultimate disposal with private industrial facilities.
In commercial areas, trash is also collected each week,
except in the downtown area where daily collections are made.
Industrial trash is not collected by the city. Industrial firms
must either haul their own waste or contract a private firm to
do so. The city does, however, allow these firms to use the
city landfill at White Street. Costs of collection and disposal
of wastes are paid from ad valorem taxes (for residential and
commercial customers) and landfill operating revenues collected
from private contractors who utilize the landfill for disposal.
In addition to the normal collection system, the Sani-
tation Division also operates a newspaper recycling program.
These papers are collected by sanitation forces three times per
week and hauled to a local waste paper dealer who shreds and
bales the paper. The shredded paper is then shipped to various
plants for recycling.
The city has used the sanitary landfill method of dis-
posal for many years. Prior to using the landfill method exclu-
sively, the city operated an incinerator. The incinerator was
discontinued in 1958. The present method of disposal involves
burying waste under a layer of soil and then compacting it to
avoid erosion and uneven settling of the land. There have been
no instances of significant adverse environmental effects as a
result of this operation. For example, Keeley Park, a City of
11-117
-------
Greensboro public park, will be enlarged as land is reclaimed
from the existing landfill. The major disadvantage to this method
is obtaining new landfill sites in suitable locations. At pre-
sent utilization rates, the site should be adequate in area for
about 12 more years. However, the location of this site is not
favorable to trucks making rounds in the south and west since
they must travel several miles in order to deposit waste items.
In 1970, the city purchased a trash compactor which re-
duces the volume of trash before it is buried. This device com-
pacts waste by 50,000 pounds of pressure arid minimizes the area
waste occupies. This compactor has a capacity of 80 tons per
hour.
Collection of solid wastes in unincorporated areas out-
side the city is by private collectors, with the wastes hauled to
either the Greensboro or High Point landfills. A 1974 study of
solid waste disposal for Guilford County recommended coordinated
countywide service. This recommendation has not been implemented
and collection by private contractors continues. The cities of
Greensboro and ‘digh Point are paid for use of their landfills
by private contractors on a load (volume) basis.
The city is presently involved in a joint venture with
the governments of High Point and Guilford County in obtaining
ew landfill sites. This project involves three sites, arid each
will have a trash pulverizer that shreds waste before it is bur-
ied in an adjacent sanitary landfill. The sites will be installed
in phases. The first site is adjacent to the existing landfill
in High Point and covers approximately 100 acres, including the
landfill. The High Point site has been operational, including
the pulverizer, since Ja .iuary of 1973. The second site will be
located in western Guilford County in the vicinity of the airport.
The third site will be adjacent to the exi ting Greensboro landfill
11-118
-------
off of Thiite Street. The second (airport) site is not yet opera-
tional. Any government, private collector, individual, or indus-
try that supplies its own trucks may use the site of its choice.
There are also plans to sell any scrap or pulverized materials
to those dealing in reusable materials. Possibly some of the
operating expenses of the collection and disposal functions could
be realized from the sale of this material.
Looking to the future, Greensboro, High Point, and
Guilford County, together with the City of Winston-Salem, are in-
vestigating the possibility of rail haul of solid wastes from
these areas to Duke Power Company’s Belews Creek steam power plant
about 20 miles northwest of the Study Area for incineration in
the steam boilers tnere. If this possibility fails to material-
ize, additional landfill sites will probably have to be developed
before the end of the study period, one of which may be the site
currently proposed near the airport.
d. Schools
Guilford County has three public school administrative
units although county funds finance all buildings and grounds
used for public education in Guilford County, including Greens-
boro and High Point. The three administrative units are the
Guilford County Board of Education, the Greensboro City Board of
Education, and the High Point City Board of Education.
The Greensboro School District’s boundaries are not
coterminous with the corporate limits; therefore, someone who
lives in the city can attend county schools, and some residents
outside the city limits can attend city schools. The Greensboro
school system currently has 40 schools in operation with 1,350
teachers instructing 26,228 pupils--or a favorable student-
teacher ratio of 19.4 to 1.
11-119
-------
e. Libraries
The Greensboro Public Library provides consolidated
library service on a county-wide basis, except for the separately
operated libraries in High Point and Gibsonville. Currently,
the main library has a staff of 31 people and in 1971 had a col-
lection of 267,227 volumes. The Southeast Branch has three staff
members and in 1971 had a collection of 18,840 volumes. The Ben-
jamin Branch has four staff members and 21,000 volumes. The
Southwest Branch has four employees and the Northeast Branch has
four employees. Total libray employment is 46 people. Quaker
village and Pomona Community branches are not staffed at present.
f. Health
Guilford County provides health services to county
residents. The Public Health Department provides the following
services: health education, environmental health, nursing, den-
tistry, clinical, oaboratory, nutrition, physical therapy, speech
and hearing, social services, and administration. The department
has a staff of approximately 310 people.
The county also provides for an Area Mental Health Pro-
grain. This service includes programs for the prevention and
treatment of psychiatric illnesses, mental retardation, alcohol-
ism, and drug abuse. Presently, there are about 216 full-time
employees of the Mental Health Program.
There are three hospitals in Greensboro with a total
of 837 beds. For the 230,000 people in the Greater Greensboro
Area (excluding High Point) this total gives a ratio of 3.6 beds
per 1,000 people. However, beds per 1,000 population is not a
reliable method for evaluating hospital effectiveness. More
importantly, no emergency or urgent case waits for admission at
11-120
-------
any of the three hospitals. At Wesley Long and Cone hospitals
elective surgery normally requires a 24-hour waiting period,
while Richardson Hospital has never had a waiting period. In
conclusion, Greensboro is adequately equipped and is making effi-
ceint use of its facilities to provide superior health care to
all in need of it.
g. Welfare
The county’s Department of Social Services performs
six functions: (1) services to families and children; (2) ser-
vices to adults; (3) supportive services; (4) financial and med-
ical assistance to categorically eligible persons as defined by
law; (5) general or emergency financial assistance; and (6)
special projects which are conducted within the department through
grants from federal or other financial resources. The Department
presently employs 436 people to serve Guilford County.
h. Administrative Facilities
The Governmental Center in Greensboro houses offices
of both the City of Greensboro and Guilford County. The center
was completed in 1972 and provides ample office space.
4. Taxes and Budgeting
The average city and county tax rate in 1976 was $l.695
per $100 assessed valuation. If property is within the city liin-
its, the city taxes are $.88 per $100 assessed valuation. For
rural property, the tax rate is $74 per $100 assessed valuation.
For tne city in FY 75-76, $.77 of the total tax rate ($.88) went
for General Fund expenditures. In FY 76-77, $.78 of the total
is going for General Fund expenditures.
11-121
-------
For FY 1975-76, Table 11-38 was prepared to show the
per capita expenditures for major con iunity services and facil—
ides. Monies for capital improvements and breakdowns of appro-
priations and expenditures for selected community facilities and
services for both the city and county are found in the Technical
Reference Document (RA-R-406).
TABLE 11—38
1975-76 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND FACILITIES, GREENSBORO AND GUILFORD COUNTY
Community Services and Facilities
Greensboro
Per Capita Expenditures
Guilford Total
Transportation:
Powell Bill Funds (state)
Streets, Sidewalks, Maintenance
Total Transportation
Water and Sewer:
Public Safety:
Adminiscration*
Law Enforcement
Fire
$10.33
14.78
$25.11
$38.95
—— $10.33
— — 14.78
$25.11
$ 3.71 $42.66
Total Public Safety
Health and Welfare:
Public Works:
Parks and Recreation:
Schools and Libraries
$ .48
34.50
20.03
$55.01
$21.63
$23.46
$ 5.82
$15.40
27.69
10.33
$53.42
$106.78
$ 1.92
$ .43
$ 76.64
$15.88
62.19
30.36
$108.43
$106.78
$ 23.55
$ 23.89
$ 82.46
*For City, includes civil defense.
Source: GR—297
11-122
-------
5. Archaeological, Cultural, Historical, and
Recreational Resources
a. Archaeology
The Piedmont area of North Carolina was inhabited by
Indians for at least ten thousand years before present and
probably for a longer period than that (CL-093). The Indians
of the area were the Siuan linguistic division and the tribes
in the area were the Saura, the Ocarieechi, the Sissipahaw, and
the Kegauwee. The Tuscarora Indians of the Iroquoian linguistic
division were known to be east of the Piedmont but they cannot
be placed in the Guilford County area (CL-093). Since it is
known that Indians were pre-Columbian inhabitants to the Piedmont,
it is logical to expect archaeological artifacts to be present
in Guilford County.
The National Register does not list any archaeological
sites in Guilford County. However, archaeological research has
been conducted in the Piedmont by Joffre Coe and specifically in
Guilford County by the Museum of Man at Wake Forest University.
Once the Wake Forest research is available, a discussion of
Guilford County’s archaeological resources will be possible. It
should be noted that known sites are often not revealed to the
public out of fear of pilferage by amateurs. Also, the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources will evaluate the
ultimate wastewater treatment system to insure that archaeological
resources are preserved.
11-123
-------
b. Historical Resources
1. Historical Perspective
The coastal areas of North Carolina were visited by
non-English speaking explorers throughout the 16th century.
However, it was 1584 before English explorers dispatched by
Walter Raleigh saw the area. An early coastal trade existed
between the English and the native Indians, but it was 1653
before a permanent English settlement was established at the west
end of Albermarle Sound. In general, the early English settlers
stayed on the Coastal Plain where they had access to ocean ship-
ping and where the plantation system of agriculture could be
utilized.
The Piedmont physiographic region to the west of the
Coastal Plain did not lend itself to plantation agriculture and
was not settled as an extension of the eastern Carolina coastal
settlements. Rather, most migrants entered the Carolina Piedmont
via the Shenandoah Valley from Pennsylvania. The Guilford County
area was settled predominantly by Scotch-Irish and German
peoples, although some people of English ancestory also settled
in the area. Since the Piedmont area was not suitable for the
plantation system, Negro slaves were not utilized on a wide
scale in the early settlement.
Guilford County was actually created from the reorgani-
zation of Orange and Rowan Counties in 1771. When it was
created, Guilford County was three times its current size. How-
ever, in 1779 Randolf County to the south was created and in
1785 Rockingharn County to the north was created. The county seat
of Guilford County was established in 1808 in “Greensborough,”
named for General Nathaniel Greene of Revolutionary War fame.
11-124
-------
From 1808 until the Civil War, Greensboro was a rather
sleepy community with respect to growth. However, in 1858 an
east-west railroad from Morehead City to Morgantown, wiiich passed
through the city, made Greensboro more attractive for development.
Between 1884 and 1904 the industrial base of Greensboro was es-
tablished with textiles, clay products, furniture, and other
wooden products leading the way (LI-176).
2. Historic Sites in the Study Area
Currently there are two National Register sites, Bland-
wood and the Jefferson Standard Building, in the Study Area (Fig-
ure 11-22). Figures in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406)
show the distribution of other historic sites, including structures
of architectural importance, in the Greensboro/Guilford County
area (excluding High Point and Jamestown).
Blandwood was built in the 1840’s for Governor John H.
Morehead. It was designed by Alexander Jackson Davis as an exam-
ple of Italiante Revival architecture. The Jefferson Standard
Building was designed by Charles Hartman and built in 1922-23.
It is probably Greensboro’s most prominant landmark being 17
stories high and opulently ornamented.
Guilford Courthouse National Military Park is located
just east of Highway 220 northwest of Greensboro (Figure 11-22).
The Battle of Guilford Courthouse between General Nathanial
Green’s Continental regulars and British forces under Lord Charles
Cornwallis was fought at this site on March 15, 1781. This battle
proved to be instrumental in the eventual defeat of the British
at Yorktown.
At least 24 structures are now under consideration as
National Register sites. Also, two areas of Greensboro are being
11-125
-------
________ OCKtNGHAM Co . _______ _______ _______ _______ ______
I
ILFORD COURTHOUSE
NATIONAL MILITARY PARK
FIGURE 11—22
2
3 4
SCALE IN MILES
III
‘-4
‘-4
N.)
0 ’
I
5
6
A.
I
MAJOR HISTORICAL SITES IN ThE STUDY AREA
-------
considered for Historic District status, the Southern Railway
Complex and the South Elm Street Area.
c. Recreational Facilities
There appears to be a wide variety of recreational ac-
tivities and facilities to choose from and a fairly uniform
spatial distribution. Figures presented in the Technical Refer-
ence Document (RA-R-406) show the location and distribution of
the various types of facilities presently available in the Greens-
boro area. According to the City’s Capital Improvement Program
(GR-263), some major additions to the Parks and Recreation De-
partment facilities are planned for t ie near future, including
a Bikeway Plan, proposed parks, and proposed recreation centers.
These are shown in Figure 11-23.
6. Transportation
Greensboro’s transportation links with North Carolina
and the rest of the South are instrumental in understanding the
city’s growth since World War II. First of all, Greensboro has
always had an advantageous position with respect to rail service.
It still maintains a model position as a rail center. Greensboro
sees more freight trains daily than other major cities such as
Raleigh or Caarlotte in North Carolina.
The Greensboro-High Point Airport is an important traf-
fic center in the southeastern United States with major airlines
such as Piedmont, United, Delta, and Eastern providing regular
service. The location of the airport between Greensboro, Winston-
Salem, and High Point insures that it serves a much larger trade
area than just the city of Greensboro. An expansion of the air-
port’s physical plant is currently underway.
11-127
-------
• PROPOSED RECREATIONAL
CENTER AND PARK
o PROPOSED PARK
PROPOSED BIKEWAY
FIGURE 11—23
PROPOS ED RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES
‘-1
I-i
Co
-------
Greensboro’s highway links with North Carolina and the
South are extremely important in understanding Greensboro’s
growth in recent years. Interstate 40 provides a link with Win-
ston-Salem, while Interstate 85 connects Greensboro with the
Raleigh-Durham area in the east, High Point and Charlotte to
the southwest. Greensboro is a focal point for truck traffic
in the state. Intrastate bus traffic indicates the same central-
ity for Greensboro.
With respect to the Greensboro area, the intersection
of Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 dominates local traffic counts.
Figure 11-24 shows the heaviest traffic in the southeast part of
town where the highways join (CR-279). The next major thorough-
fares are U.S. 29-70 going north and Wendover Avenue going east-
west on the north side of the Central Business District. In
general, the traffic counts are higher on the west side of the
Central Business District as the less important streets showing
the daily community flow of people in new suburban areas west
of town.
Figure 11-25 shows the basic features of the proposed
Greensboro thoroughfare plan. The key feature of the plan is
the proposed links to existing thoroughfares. The major proposed
thoroughfares going toward the Central Business District are from
the northwest and southwest, designed to either carry existing
traffic to and from those areas or to accommodate anticipated
growth in those areas.
7. Resource Use
a. Existing Electricity Use
Duke Power Company is the sole supplier of electricity
for the Guilford County area and specifically for the City of
11-129
-------
SOURCE: GR—279
FIGURE 11—24
TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAJOR STREETS (1975)
-------
EXISTING PROPOSED
FREEWAY OR _______
EXPRESSWAY
MAJOR _______
THOROUGHFARE
MINOR _______
THOROUGHFARE
INTERCHANGE - SOME DEGREE OF ACCESS •
ROADWAY SEPARATION - NO ACCESS 0
0 3 8 9 12 15 lB
SCM.E IN THOUSAND FEET
FIGURE 11—25
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
LEGEND
H
H
I -i
-------
Greensboro (CL-093). No public power plants are in Guilford County.
The Greensboro District of Duke Power serves most of
Guilford County with the exception of High Point and Jamestown.
The electricity consumption for the district for the past twelve
months appears in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
Residential use varies seasonally while commercial and government
(city lights, etc.,) iold rather constant. The industrial use
has been rising lately from a period of industrial cutbacks.
b. Projected Electrical Use
Duke Power forecasts that consumption of electricity
will increase by 7 to 87 annually (HO-318). Company officials
state that Duke Power can easily acco odate this growth and
that the company is currently operating with a reserve capacity
of 357o (H0318).
Also, it would appear that Duke Power is in a favorable
position for providing projected energy needs because of the type
of fuels used. In 1975, 627 of the energy came from coal, 34%
from nuclear plants, and 67 from hydroelectric plants. The 2%
excess was sold to other plants (HO-318). Obviously, Duke Power
is currently free from dependence on oil or gas.
c. Natural Resource Users
Mining in Guilford County as of January 1976 was lim-
ited to crushed stone, sand and gravel, and clay. Crushed stone
is the only resource mined in the study area (MC-249). The loca-
tions of these mineral extraction areas are presented in the Tech-
nical Reference Document (RA-R-406). No coal, oil, or natural
gas is found in Guilford County.
11-132
-------
8. Water and Wastewater Services
a. Water Supply and Distribution
Water supplies for the City of Greensboro are drawn
from a complex of three reservoirs on Reedy Fork Creek including
Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and Lake Townsend. This system of
lakes has an estimated safe water supply yield of 46 MGD (11A-544).
Raw water is treated at either the Townsend Filter Plant or the
Mitchell Filter Plant which have filter capacities of 20 MGD and
24 MCD respectively. This water treatment capacity should be
adequate throughout the design period of the project. The geo-
graphical location of the water supply and distribution facili-
ties for Greensboro are shown on Figure 11-26. Included are the
locations for the two filter plants and points of water supply
withdrawal, storage facilities, and water distribution lines of
12-inch diameter or larger (HA-544).
The combined maximum and minimum, monthly daily average
and the average pumpage rate for both the iLL. Mitchell and Lake
Townsend pumping stations and the maximum and minimum monthly
daily average and the average water sold for 1975 and through
September of 1976 are presented in Table 11-39. The average
water supply pumpage for Greensboro was 20.57 MCD in 1975 and
was 21.52 MCD in 1976. The average water sold was 18.13 MGD in
975 and was 19.26 MCD in 1976.
According to current water rate schedules for users bott
inside and outside the city, rates for users outside the city are
approximately double those of users inside the city. Addition-
ally, users outside the city must pay an assessment to the county
which is determined by the acreage and front footage of the
11-133
-------
ROCKINGHAM Co.
N
FIGURE 11-25
MAJOfl WATER SYSTEM FEATURES
EXISTING 12 OR LARGER PIPE
• STORAGE TANKS
A FILTER PLANTS
* WATER WITNORAW L POINTS
2 3 4
— —
SCALE IN MILES
1-4
0
C)
I
I-
0)
0
u -I
S
8
il
-------
TABLE 11—39
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM MONTHLY DAILY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE WATER
SUPPLY PUMPED AND SOLD FROM N.L. MITCHELL AND LAKE TOWNSEND
PUMPING STATIONS
Sold Sold
( MGD) ( MGD)
1975 1976 1975 1976
Maximum 22.50 22.58 20.58 21.24
Minimum 19.00 20.02 15.71 16.94
Average 20.57 21.52 18.13 19.26
property served before receiving services. All distribution
lines inside and outside the city are maintained by the city.
The present approximate quantity of municipal and in-
dustrial water use in Greensboro is given in Table II 40. Pre—
sent municipal water use is approximately 15.85 MCD and major
industry water use is approximately 5.67 GD.
TABLE 11—40
ESTIMATED PRESENT WATER USE IN GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Water Use
User ( MCD )
Municipal 15.85
Industrial 5.67
Total 21.52
b. Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The City of Greensboro currently maintains a separate
type wastewater collection system with approximately 720 miles
of outfall sewers and approximately 14 miles of force main (HA-544).
11-135
-------
A report on the infiltration/inflow analysis completed in Novem-
ber 1973 concludes that the existing wastewater collection system
currently experiences excessive infiltration/inflow with an ap-
proximate excess infiltration of 0.7 MGD and 1.3 MGD for the
North Buffalo Creek collection system and South Buffalo Creek
collection system, respectively. That report recommends that
for projecting future wastewater flows a non-excessive infiltra-
tion of 0.7 MCD and 0.9 MCD be assumed for the North and South
Buffalo Creek collection systems, respectively. Additionally,
it is recommended that respective allowable inflow of 18 MCD
and 9.5 MGD above the dry day peak flows be included for design
flow adjustment. A new infiltration/inflow evaluation survey
is currently in progress. This survey will locate areas of exces-
sive infiltration/inflow and will propose corrective measures; pre-
liminary results of this study indicate that a non-excessive infil-
tration/inflow of 2.7 MCD will be recommended for design purposes.
The city is serviced by two wastewater treatment facil-
ities including the North Buffalo Creek Plant with an approximate
capacity of 18 MGD and the South Buffalo Creek Plant with an ap-
proximate capacity of 11 MCD.
The location of major gravity sewers, pump stations,
force mains, and the two wastewater treatment facilities are
shown in Figure 11-27. Wastewater discharged to the North
Buffalo treatment facility is predominantly domestic, and the
majority of the industri .al wastewater generated in Greensboro
is discharged to the South Buffalo Creek Plant. Approximately
four industries not including restaurants and laundries dis-
charge to the North Buffalo Creek Plant with a total average
daily flow of approximately 0.730 MCD. Approximately 18 indus-
tries not including restaurants and laundries discharge to the
South Buffalo Creek Plant with a total average daily flow of
approximately 4.383 MGD.
11-136
-------
LEGEND
— OUTFALL 8EWERS
• - FORCE MAINS
• LIFT STATION
o TREATMENT PLANT
________ ROCKINGHAM CO.
FIGURE 11-27
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
SCALE IN MILES
c i
0
I
I-
U)
a.
0
1
-------
The North Buffalo Creek treatment facility treats and
discharges an average flow of approximately 10 MGD. Primary
treatment is provided by four rectangular primary sedimentation
tanks which have a total volume of 1,150,000 cubic feet, a total
surface area of 12,800 square feet, and a total treatment capa-
city of approximately 20.5 MGD. Secondary treatment is accom-
plished with trickling filters followed by aeration facilities.
The two trickling filters have a total volume of 251,200 cubic
feet and a design capacity of approximately 20 MGD. The four
rectangular aeration tanks have a total volume of 580,000 cubic
feet and an approximate design capacity of 20.5 MGD. Air is
supplied through diffused aeration facilities which have a cap-
ability of delivering approximately 14,000 CFM. Final clarifi-
cation is accomplished with five circular sedimentation tanks
which have a combined surface area of 26,000 square feet and a
total design capacity of approximately 20.8 MCD based on an over-
flow rate of 800 gpd per square foot. Before discharge to North
Buffalo Creek, the treated wastewater receives chlorination in a
35,800 cubic foot rectangular chlorine contact chamber capable of
providing 30 minutes of contact for a maximum daily flow of 13
MGD (HA-527).
Mixed primary and thickened waste-activated sludge is
dewatered by vacuum filters before incineration and final dis-
posal of the ash at the state-approved White Street landfill ad-
jacent to the plant site (HA-527).
The South Buffalo Creek treatment facility treats and
discharges an average flow of approximately 9.6 MCD. Primary
treatment is provided by one square and one circular primary
sedimentation tank which have a total volume of approximately
94,300 cubic feet, a total surface area of approximately 9,924
square feet, and a total treatment capacity of approximately
16 MCD (HA-527). Secondary treatment is accomplished with
11-138
-------
trickling filters followed by aeration facilities. The two
trickling filters have a total volume of 265,000 cubic feet and
a design capacity as roughing filters of approximately 9.1 MGD.
The four rectangular aeration tanks have a total volume of 652,400
cubic feet and a hydraulic design capacity of approximately 15
MGD. Air is supplied by platform-mounted surface aeration and
floating surface aerators. The mounted aerators have a combined
capacity of 200 h.p. and the floating aerators have a combined
capacity of 360 h.p. Final clarification is accomplished with
two circular sedimentation tanks which have a combined surface
area of 17,300 square feet and a total design capacity of approx-
imately 10 MGD. Before discharge to South Buffalo Creek, 6 MGD
of treated wastewater is filtered through tertiary sand filters
and receives chlorination in a 25,000 cubic foot chlorine con-
tact chamber capable of providing 30 minutes of contact for a
maximum daily flow of 12 MCD (HA-527).
Mixed primary and thickened waste-activated sludge is
dewatered by vacuum filters before transport to the North Buffalo
Creek Plant for incineration. Ash is disposed of at the White
Street landfill (HA-527).
The average influent and effluent quality concentrations
with respect to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended
solids (SS) at both the North Buffalo and South Buffalo Creek
wastewater treatment facilities are given in Table 11-41. The
North Buffalo Creek plat t discharges an effluent with an average
BOD concentration of approximately 14 mg/2 and an average suspen-
ded solids concentration of approximately 20 mg/Z, while the
South Buffalo Creek plant discharges an effluent with an average
BOD concentration of 31 mg/9 and an average suspended solid con -.
centration of approximately 54 mgIL. The lower quality effluent
at the South Buffalo Plant probably is a result of the larger
portion of industrial wastewater discharged to that plant and
11-139
-------
TABLE 11—41
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY AT NORTH AND SOUTh BUFFALO
CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT FAC IL IT I ES
BOD (mg/i) SS (mg/i )
Treatment
Facility Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal
North Buffalo 288 14 95 150 20 80
South Buffalo 264 31 88 248 54 78
the lack of sufficient oxygen transfer facilities. Additionally,
the South Buffalo Plant is operating near its peak hydraulic
capacity, whereas the North Buffalo Plant is operating at approx-
imately 50 percent of its hydraulic capacity. Both treatment
plants suffer foaming problems, possibly resulting from oil and
grease or surfactants contained in the influent wastewater which
are not removed in the treatment process.
Charges for domestic wastewater services are equal to
100 percent of the water rates. Charges for industrial waste-
water services are stipulated in the City of Greensboro’s sewer
ordinance which identifies surcharges applicable to users with
strong wastewaters. A uniform charge rate schedule will become
effective in July, 1977 (HA-527).
11-140
-------
III. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (FWPCAA: PL 92-500) were designed to establish a water poi-
lution control program to protect the nation’s navigable waters.
The pollution control program which was established by this law
includes federal standards for industrial and municipal waste
treatment and provisions for federal enforcement, a permit and
license system (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
which governs the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters,
and a massive grant-in-aid program for the construction of pub-
licly-owned waste treatment works.
The basic objective of the FWPCAA is to eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States by 1985.
The feasibility or environmental desirability of meeting this
“zero discharge” goal by 1985 has not been established. However,
the less stringent interim goals and requirements established for
1977 and 1983 will be enforced. Therefore, the Division of En-
vironmental Management (DEM) of the State of North Carolina, in
accordance with Section 303(e) of the FWPCAA has prepared a man-
agement plan for the Cape Fear River Basin. This basin plan,
specifically the subbasin 02 plan, identifies those treatment
levels required to protect the water quality of these rivers and
their tributaries of the Greensboro area to levels consistent with
the 1977 and 1983 interim goals. It is the objective of the City
of Greensboro, North Carolina, to participate in this federal
pollution control program, specifically that authorized by Section
201 of FL 92-500, to achieve the current and future water quality
goals and requirements by providing expanded and upgraded waste-
water treatment facilities for both municipal and industrial use.
The city in pursuit of these goals will comply with Section 301 of
PL 95-500 which mandates that the discharge of any pollutant meet
water quality standards. III -
-------
B. Design Flow
The City of Greensboro is currently serviced by two mun-
icipal wastewater treatment facilities including the North Buffalo
Creek treatment plant and the South Buffalo Creek treatment plant
which have a combined hydraulic treatment capacity of approximately
29 MGD. With a present wastewater flow of approximately 21 MGD,
the existing facilities are hydraulically adequate. However, neither
wastewater treatment plant is capable of producing a high quality
effluent as required by law. Therefore, the City of Greensboro
must, at minimum, upgrade its wastewater treatment capability to
comply with federal and state laws.
Design flow analysis was based upon forecasted require-
ments for a 20-year timeframe. The selection of a proper design
flow for both legal and planning purposes is essential before rea-
sonable subsystem and system alternatives can be identified and
developed. Additionally, this total design flow must be disaggre-
gated into the respective drainage areas from which it emanates to
aid in selection of candidate sites and appropriate design capa-
cities of proposed or existing wastewater treatment plants.
To determine an appropriate design flow, the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency has designated two methodologies
as acceptable for use. The major difference in the two is
the method by which future industrial flows are projected. The
“OBERS” 1 methodology assumes that the past and present relation-
ships between industrial flows and industrial economic conditions
including employment and total earnings will persist. For this
method, the Office of Business Analysis and Economic Research
1 OBERS is a joint venture of several government agencies for
demographic and economic projections of common interest, sponsored
by the U.S. Water Resources Council.
111-2
-------
Service’s industrial earnings projections can be applied accord-
ingly to the respective SMSA’s 2 present industrial flows to pro-
ject future industrial flows. This methodology requires a sig-
nificant quantity of information from both city and industrial
records to establish the appropriate and acceptable relationships.
Since the city records were not in a form that is readily avail-
able and since specific industries expressed a reluctance to pro-
vide the necessary, yet proprietary, information, the “OBERS”
methodology could not be used for this study. A more detailed
description of the appropriate use of OBERS economic projections,
as defined by EPA and DNER, is provided in the Technical Reference
Document (RA-R- .406).
The second acceptable methodology for determining the
20-year design flow assumes that industrial growth will approx-
imate ten percent of the total present and future municipal flow,
present industrial flow, and allowable infiltration/inflow. Addi-
tional industrial capacity can be acquired from letters of intent
from industries indicating their future treatment capacity needs.
This adjusted design flow will be used for facilities’ planning
purposes only. Before Step II funding or design can proceed,
the future industrial flows established by the letters of intent
from industries must be substantiated. This substantiation will
consist of a letter of commitment from the participating indus-
tries, verifying their responsibility to comply with all user
charge and cost recovery requirements associated with that addi-
tional flow. If the letters of commitment are not forthcoming,
the design flow for Step II will be adjusted downward accordingly.
Step II funding includes the detailed design drawings and speci-
fications for the proposed wastewater treatment system.
The design flow for the City of Greensboro was esta-
blished using the “ten percent” method. Using various assumptions
2 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area - a region composed of one
or more counties functionally tied to a central city of 50,000
or more people.
111-3
-------
and projections for percent of population served in the study area
and per capita wastewater flow, the predicted design flow can range
from approximately 29 MCD to 39 MGD. A design flow of 36 MCD was
selected for purposes of the alternatives development. This figure
includes industrial letters of intent for reserve capacity of 1.5
MGD and a per capita wastewater flow increase over the design period
of approximately 10 percent, which eliminates considerations for
water conservation measures in this potentially water short area.
The total design flow of 36 MGD is disaggregated into
respective drainage areas from which it emanates to help locate
and size alternative wastewater treatment facilities. Using pop-
ulation and industrial growth forecasts, the projected flow was
disaggregated as shown in Table 111-1. With 18 MGD of wastewater
generated from the South Buffalo service area and an additional
2.0 MGD from downstream of the South Buffalo service area, which
includes the Alamance Creek area, the minimum capacity of a facil-
ity treating wastewater from this area is 20 MCD. Facilities de-
signed to treat wastewaters generated in the North Buffalo Creek
service area should have a minimum capacity of 13.6 MCD. If waste-
water generated in the Horsepen Creek area is transferred to the
North Buffalo Creek service area, the design flow should be in-
creased by 2.4 MCD to 16.0 MCD resulting in a total design capa-
city of 36 MCD.
TABLE l IT-i
DISAGGRECATED DESIGN FLOW FOR CITY OF GREENSBORO, N.C .
South Buffalo Horsepen Ueelgn Yei r
Source South Buffalo ( Downstream) North Buffalo Creek —__Iota!
Domestic & Cossnercial 9.9 0.9 9.7 1.2 21.7
InstitutIonal 0.3 1.0 1.3
Industrial
Existing 3.7 1.5 0.5 5.7
Future 1.5 1.0 0.6 3.1
Intent 1.5 1.5
Infiltration/Inflow 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 2.7
Total 18.0 2.0 13.6 2.4 36.0
111-4
-------
C. Development of System and Subsystem Alternatives
1. Approach
The selection of reasonable system and subsystem alter-
natives for expanding and/or upgrading the existing wastewater
treatment facilities is responsive to the inability of the present
facilities to meet proposed standards. Deficiencies occur when
a facility or system does not have the capacity to treat the pro-
jected flow and/or it cannot produce the desired level of treat-
ment.
A set of eight system alternatives, exclusive of No
Action, were identified and recommended for evaluation in the 201
Facilities Plan and in public hearings concerning this project.
These alternatives were based on a design flow substantially dif-
ferent from that established for this EIS and, therefore, are not
applicable to this program. Consequently, a new set of system
alternatives had to be derived for evaluation. To develop the
system and subsystem alternatives necessary to attain the project
goals, the capacity and treatment capability of the existing unit
processes were inventoried. After completion of this task, all
reasonable methods of discharge and locations for new or existing
facilities were determined from which effluent limitations were
assigned. Finally, the most cost-effective unit processes for
meeting these limitations were selected for each facility and the
system and subsystem alternatives were identified. Detailed
evaluations of these identified alternatives provided the basis
for selection of the proposed action.
2. Capability of Existing Facilities
The North Buffalo Creek plant has a hydraulic design
capacity of approximately 18 MGD and the South Buffalo Creek plant
111—5
-------
has a hydraulic design capacity of approximately 11 MCD. With a
total design flow capacity of approximately 29 MCD, the Greensboro
wastewater treatment facilities are hydraulically adequate to
treat the present flow of approximately 21 MCD but must be expan-
ded to provide the 20-year design capacity of 36 MCD.
From data reported during a 21-month period from January
1975 to September 1976, the North Buffalo plant discharges an
average daily flow of approximately 10.8 MGD with an average 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) concentration of approximately
16.0 mg/L and a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration of ap-.
proximately 23.0 mg/P... This level of treatment represents a treat-
ment efficiency of approximately 93 percent. The South Buffalo
plant currently discharges an average daily flow of approximately
9.5 MGD with an average BOD 5 concentration of approximately 35.3
mg/P.. and an average TSS concentration of approximately 50.5 mg/P..
for a total treatment efficiency of approximately 87 percent.
Neither plant currently monitors for ammonia-nitrogen (NH 3 -N) con-
centration, but little removal is expected owing to inadequate
aeration facilities at both sites. A detailed inventory of exist-
ing wastewater treatment facilities and sludge handling facilities,
including design criteria and capacity, is provided in the Techni-
cal Reference Document (RA-R-406).
3. Wastewater Treatment Process Alternatives
A list of all available unit processes for the treatment
of municipal and industrial wastewaters is extensive and will not
be discussed in detail. However, a general discussion of physical/
chemical and biological systems follows.
111-6
-------
a. Physical/Chemical Processes
Considerations for physical/chemical processes for treat-
ment of wastewaters usually includes sedimentation, chemical pre-
cipitation, activated carbon adsorption, filtration, and disinfec-
tion. Ion exchange and pH control for air stx’ipping are sometimes
considered for removal of ammonia.
Physical/chemical processes are also often employed for
sludge treatment and disposal. These processes may include vacuum
filters or centrifuges for dewatering, sand drying beds for sludge
drying, and incinerators. Other forms of heat treatment are also
used.
Physical/chemical processes are most applicable or treat-
ing wastewaters which are not amenable to biological treatment.
Capital costs for physical/chemical facilities are usually about
the same as a biological system but operation and maintenance
costs are generally much higher owing to chemical cost and possi-
ble excess sludge production.
Physical/chemical processes are most often used in com-
bination with biological facilities. The most common uses include
preliminary treatment including bar racks and screens, comminutor,
grit collection and removal, primary sedimentation or clarification,
and disinfection with either chlorination or ozonation.
b. Biological Processes
Biological processes are used for both the treatment
of wastewaterS and stabilization of organic sludges. Secondary
treatment is often accomplished with biological trickling filters
or one of several modifications of the activated sludge process.
These modifications include conventional activated sludge, contact
III -7
-------
stabilization, step aeration, and extended aeration and are usu-
ally followed by secondary clarification.
Nitrification, i.e., the oxidation of organic nitrogen
and ammonia to nitrite and nitrate, can be achieved with activated
sludge if sufficient aeration is supplied and a long detention
time is allowed. Additionally, denitrification or the reduction
of nitrates to nitrogen gas, can be accomplished biologically
under anaerobic conditions if a supplementary organic energy source
is added.
Primary and waste activated sludges can be stabilized
biologically in either anaerobic or aerobic digestion. Either
process can produce a relatively inert, easily dewatered material
acceptable for disposal in a public landfill site.
4. Effluent Disposal Alternatives
The four most common methods of final disposal of treated
effluent include direct discharge to receiving streams, land appli-.
cation, recycle/reuse, and subsurface injection. Currently, the
two existing treatment facilities discharge directly to the North
and South Buffalo Creeks.
a. Direct Discharge to Receiving Streams
Direct discharge to receiving streams is the most com-
mon method employed for ultimate disposal of treated wastewater.
The level or degree of treatment required is dependent on the
downstream usages of the water and the capacity of the receiving
stream to assimilate the pollutional load discharged. Receiving
streams with a low assimilative capacity will require a higher
quality effluent to maintain a fixed level of dissolved oxygen
content. This case is characteristic of the North and South
Buffalo Creeks in Greensboro.
111-8
-------
b. Land Application
Land application of pretreated wastewaters can be an
economically attractive alternative because a les ser degree of
treatment may be required and valuable nutrients including nitrogen
and phosphorus can be recycled onto cropland. Additionally, as-
sulning proper performance, treated wastewaters are removed from
the area streams. However, according to the Soil Conservation
Service surveys, with the exception of only a few locations, soils
in the Greensboro area are generally unsuitable for land applica-.
tion practices. Assuming an application rate of 0.25 inches/day,
approximately 10 square miles of disposal field would be required.
Therefore, it is doubtful that permits for such practices could
be secured and effluent land application practices are not con-
sidered practicable for this area.
c. Recycle/Reuse
Direct recycle for industrial or municipal demands can
offer a potential for reuse of treated wastewater. The level or
degree of treatment required is contingent on the specific use
intended for the recycled wastewater.
The most probable municipal use for recycled wastewater
is to augment the regional water supply. Unless additional re-
sources are provided, Greensboro water demands will approach
existing supply resources near the end of the design period.
However, because existing water supplies are marginally adequate
and plans for additional resources are currently being investi-
gated, water reuse for municipal water supplies is not considered
in this study. If in the future water supply resources do become
scarce, additional treatment processes can be incorporated in the
existing or proposed facilities to allow for municipal recycle,
assuming public approval is obtained. Because public approval
111-9
-------
or acceptance could prove to be prohibitive, it is recommended
that the city resolve the public acceptance question in advance
in the event such recycle becomes necessary.
d. Subsurface Injection
The lack of suitable subsurface formations in the study
area prohibit the use of subsurface disposal methods.
5. Sludge Disposal Alternatives
Sludge handling facilities at the North Buffalo plant
include thickeners, vacuum filters for dewatering, and incinera-
tion. Ash is hauled to the nearby existing landfill site. A
two-stage anaerobic digestion facility for waste stabilization
is also available but is used only as a back-up to the vacuum
filters and incinerators.
Sludge handling facilities at the South Buffalo plant
include thickeners and vacuum filters. The dewatered sludge is
trucked to the North Buffalo plant for incineration and ultimate
disposal of ash at the existing landfill site. A single-stage
anaerobic digestion facility is also available but has not been
used recently owing to the toxicity characteristics of the in-
dustrial waste loads which prohibit proper biological degradation
for digestion.
Currently, a sludge management study is being conducted
at the South Buffalo plant. The intent of this study is to de-
velop a suitable sludge management scheme for the existing Greens-
boro facilities. One possibility being considered includes the pro-
duction of an acceptable non-toxic soil amendment or conditioner for
public use. This process includes stabilization of both primary and
waste-activated sludge through anaerobic digestion, followed by
111-10
-------
dewatering with the existing vacuum filters. The stabilized de-
watered sludge will be stockpiled near the vicinity of the South
Buffalo plant and will be made available to the public as a soil
conditioner. The success of this scheme will be largely dependent
on the public acceptance and demand for the finished product.
Another possible sludge handling alternative which
should be considered, especially for new treatment facilities,
is aerobic digestion. These facilities minimize odor problems
associated with sludge disposal and produce a well-stabilized
sludge. Dewatering can be accomplished with either vacuum fil-
ters or centrifuge and sand drying beds can be considered for
further drying. Sludge processed in this manner can be either
disposed of in a sanitary landfill or land-spread with little
environmental problems.
Large-scale land application of stabilized liquid sludge
can be accomplished using tank trucks or spray irrigation facil-
ities. However, as with land application of treated effluents,
the soils in the study area are generally unsuitable for such
practices.
6. Non-S tr•uc1 ura]. Iter tives
Non-structural alternatives can be implemented to help
• reduce water quality problems by discouraging the use of water
and, consequently, the discharge! of wastewater. Non-structural
alternatives include flow and waste reduction measures such as
industrial water reuse and recycling, land use, zoning controls,
negative or no growth policies, education programs for decreased
water use and wastewater generation, and water and sewer rate
structure alternatives. These non-structural alternatives were
considered in determining the design flow of 36.0 MGD but were
found to be either not applicable or of little significance.
‘It-li
-------
To arrive at a design flow of 36.0 MCD it was assumed that the
per capita waste flow would increase by approximately 10 percent
and that 95 percent of the EIS Study Area would be as intensely
developed, i.e., serviced with municipal water and sewers, as the
city is today. The flow calculation assumes a 50 percent growth
in population with a corresponding 71 percent increase in waste-
water flow.
Other non-structural alternatives include improved oper-
ation and maintenance techniques, non-point source controls, and
institutional arrangements for combining facilities and wastewater
discharges. Improved operation and maintenance techniques will
help insure a consistently high quality wastewater. With the de-
sign of a Class I reliability system it is required that the city
staff the facility with certified operators and technicians to
insure proper operation and maintenance.
Urban and agricultural non-point source discharges are
difficult to control with current technology. The initial step
is an attempt to control non-point sources and to identify the
source and magnitude of any problem. The level of effort required
to complete this task is out of scope for development of this EIS.
However, the results of the current non-point source monitoring
program in the Horsepen Creek drainage basin may be useful for
making projections and identifying potential problems.
Institutional arrangements to combine facilities and
wastewater discharges have only limited applicability in Greens-
boro. The three major sources of wastewater discharge include
the two municipal wastewater treatment facilities and Cone Mills
industries. Cone Mills treats and discharges approximately 3.50
MGD of wastewater just upstream of the North Buffalo plant. Pos-
sibilities for other industrial wastewater hook-ups with the exist-
ing facilities should be investigated. While these industries
111-12
-------
discharge a relatively small volume of wastewater, the pollutant
loading can be significant.
7. Location Alternatives
All reasonable and technically feasible wastewater
treatment systems with respect to plant siting which can be in-
corporated with the existing facilities to satisfy the objectives
and requirements for the City of Greensboro are identified and
are presented in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406).
The location of all candidate treatment plant sites are shown in
Figure Ill-i. The alternatives, list in the Technical Reference
Document includes basically 124 system alternatives which iden-
tify one, two, and three plant configurations. Alternatives which
consider a new facility do not, at this level, specify where this
facility will be located, but instead only recognize a new facility
in another location. In most cases the new facility can be rea-
sonably located at any one of a number of sites.
Where applicable, phased construction is considered to
allow for flexibility for future expansion. The date at which
such phased expansion should occur, based on a design flow of 36
MGD, is provided in the list.
Forty-eight of the apparently more promising system al-
ternatives were selected as indicators for further evaluation.
This selection did not eliminate any system alternatives origin-
ally identified but, by working with a smaller set of alternatives,
provided a means. by which engineering, environmental, and economic
judgements could be verified. These forty-eight alternatives are
identified and noted on the list in the Technical Reference Docu-
ment (RA-R-406).
111-13
-------
— ________ ROCKINGHAM Co . _______ _______ _______ _______
I
0 EXISTING SITE
•CANDIDATE NEW SITE
FIGURE Ill-i
LOCATION OF EXISTING AND
CANDIDATE WWT PLANT SITES
2
* 4
SCALE IN MILES
H
H
H
-a
5
S
I
-------
These selected alternatives were examined on a “high
level” economic and environmental basis. Calculations for the
preliminary economic analysis are based on the assumption that
each plant will provide a tertiary level of treatment with nitri-
fication followed by multimedia filtration. In all cases, sludge
handling facilities included dewatering with vacuum filters prior
to incineration and ultimate disposal of ash at the existing land-
fill site.
The results of the preliminary analysis along with sche-
matics of forty of the alternatives examined are provided in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). The “rough” cost figures
provided are intended for screening purposes only and are not to
be interpreted as final cost estimates for the EIS.
After review of the preliminary evaluations, all system
alternatives originally identified were screened to select candi-
date alternatives for detailed environmental and economic analysis.
The basis for screening alternatives and the specific reason why
each alternative not selected was eliminated is provided in the
Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). Eleven alternatives, in-
cluding No Action, survived this screening process. These eleven
alternatives include 4, three modifications of 15, 40, 42, 46, 70,
85, and 85 without phasing from the original list. A brief des-
cription of these alternatives is provided on a separate list in
the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). After further con-
sideration, five of these remaining alternatives were eliminated
and two additional alternatives were included. Reasons for this
screening are also provided in the Technical Reference Document
(RA-R-406). Those system alternatives selected to receIve further
economic and environmental evaluation include numbers 4, four
modifications of 15, and 70, as well as No Action, and henceforth
will be referred to as system alternatives numbers 1 through 7,
respectively. The four modifications of Alternative 15 differ
11 1-15
-------
only in the location of a new 20 MCD plant. In all cases, the
new facility is located downstream of the existing South Buffalo
Creek facility on either South Buffalo Creek, the confluence of
North and South Buffalo Creeks, or Buffalo Creek.
D. Description of Alternatives Selected for
Evaluation
A total of 7 system alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, received detailed environmental and cost evaluation.
A summary description of these alternatives is provided in Table
111-2.
To maintain the existing facilities as they are now oper-
ating would constitute a type of “no action” approach to wastewater
treatment. However, regulatory constraints which control the
discharge of wastewater clearly eliminate a true “no action” alter-
native. Consideration of a “no acton” alternative is mandated by
the CEQ guidelines for the National Environmental Policy Act. There-
fore, the No Action alternative was defined to include upgrading but
no expansion of existing facilities to meet 1983 discharge require-
ments. This No Action alternative also would involve expenditure
of federal and state funds.
Detailed descriptions with location maps of the various
components required for each of the system alternatives are pre-
sented. This information was used for both the environmental and
economic assessment of these alternatives. For purposes of com-
parison, a map description of the existing facilities is provided
in Figure 111-2.
Alternative 1 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MGD;
upgrade and expand the existing South Buffalo Creek facil-
ity to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 20.0 MGD;
111—16
-------
TABLE 111—2
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0 Z
Z 0
0 Z
z
- - _ 0 0
- 0 0
0.. 0. 0 3
0 0 J . . C
-C,..
C,, C,. — C’
U
-0
—0
cnQ {#)CI Cfl
C,,
3 3 30
0 0 . C4 C J
z o’ ZO ZO Z
EXISTING
FACILITIES
18
MCD
11
MCD
ALTER 4ATIVES
1
16
MGD
20
MGD
2
16
MCD
20
MGD
3
16
MCD
20
MCD
4
16
MCD
20
MGD
5
16
MCD
20
MGD
6
16
MGD*
11
MCD
7
NO ACTI I
1$
11
)VD
*Wifl be expanded to 25 MGD in 1987
111-17
-------
‘-4
H
H
.03
-------
construct an outfall/force main from the existing South
Buffalo plant to Highway 70 (Figure 111-3).
Alternative 2 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MCD;
abandon the existing South Buffalo Creek facility and
construct a new tertiary facility approximately 14,000
lineal feet downstream of the abandoned plant; construct
an outfall sewer from the existing South Buffalo Creek
facility to the new facility downstream; construct an
outfall/force main from the new facility to Highway 70
(Figure 111-4).
Alternative 3 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MCD;
abandon the South Buffalo Creek facility and construct
a new tertiary facility approximately 26,000 lineal feet
downstream of the abandoned plant; construct an outfall
sewer from the existing South Buffalo Creek facility to
the new facility downstream (Figure 111-5).
Alternative 4 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MCD;
abandon the South Buffalo Creek facility and construct
a new tertiary facility approximately 46,500 lineal
feet (near confluence of North and South Buffalo Creeks)
downstream of the abandoned plant; construct an outfall
sewer from the existing South Buffalo Creek facility to
the new facility downstream (Figure 111-6).
Alternative 5 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MGD;
abandon the South Buffalo Creek facility and construct
a new tertiary facility approximately 20,000 lineal
111-19
-------
H
H
H
-------
feet downstream of the confluence of North and South
Buffalo Creeks; construct an outfall sewer from the
existing South Buffalo Creek facility to the new facil-
ity downstream and from the new facility to Reedy Fork
Creek for ultimate disposal of the treated wastewater
(Figure III- ).
Alternative 6 - Upgrade the North Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 16.0 MGD
immediately; upgrade the South Buffalo Creek facility
to provide a tertiary level of treatment at 11.0 MGD;
expand the North Buffalo Creek tertiary facility to
25 MGD in 1987; provide a pump station and force main
to transfer approximately 9.OMGD from the South Buffalo
Creek facility to the expanded North Buffalo Creek facil-
ity; construct an outfall/force main from the existing
South Buffalo plant to Highway 70 (Figure 111-8).
Alternative 7, No Action - Upgrade both the North Buffalo
Creek facility and the South Buffalo Creek facility to
provide a tertiary level of treatment at the present flow
capacity; provide septic tanks to additional households
which are not provided sewer service (Figure 111-9).
E. Effluent Limitations and Selection of Unit Processes
The level or degree of treatment which must be provided
by each treatment facility is dependent on the necessary hydraulic
capacity, influent quality and characteristics, and the location
and method of discharge. Effluent limitations cannot be assigned
to a particular facility until such locations and capacities are
identified. Additionally, if more than one facility is located
on a single stream or stream system such as North and South Buffalo
Creeks, the required quality of effluent discharged from each plant
may be interdependent.
111-21
-------
Effluent limitations for BUD 5 , NH 3 -N, and dissolved oxy-
gen are established in the 303(e) Basin Planning Process to attain
water quality stream standards for dissolved oxygen. The limits
for BOD 5 and NH 3 -N are usually specified as maximum monthly mean
values. Maximum weekly values, normally 1.5 times the monthly
values, are also specified in the affected discharge permits.
There are two basic levels of analysis used to establish
effluent limitations which are identified as level “B” or level
“C.” In each case the analysis can produce an infinite number of
combinations of effluent BOD 5 , NH 3 -N, and dissolved oxygen that
will attain water quality standards.
The “B” and “C” levels of analysis differ primarily by
the amount of data available. The “C” analysis is based on inten-
sive water quality survey data while the “B” analysis is an empiri-
cal analysis based largely on hydrographic factors and past ex-
perience. Additional explanation of the “B” and “C” analysis is
contained in Appendix E of the basin plan (NO-ill).
To determine the effluent limitations for the Greensboro
area, a level “C” analysis was performed for all the North and
South Buffalo Creek alternatives and a level “B” analysis was per-
formed for the Reedy Fork alternatives. All analyses were based
on the extended Streeter-Pheips theory. For discharges to the
North Buffalo Creek and to Buffalo Creek down to the confluence
with Reedy Fork, the results, of an intensive survey completed in
1972 and time of travel studies completed in 1969 and 1973 were
used for the model. Waste load allocations were assigned, based
on the assimilative capacity of the stream and the effects of all
future discharges, and were translated into effluent limitations.
For discharges to South Buffalo Creek, the results of
an intensive survey performed in August and September of 1972 were
111-22
-------
used in the model. However, the effects of other dischargers to
the stream were not explicitly incorporated in the model and no
true waste load allocations were determined. Therefore, the ef-
fluent imitatipns to South Buffalo Creek are based on the pro-
jected discharge from the municipal treatment facility alond and
the observed capacity of the creek to assimilate that sole dis-
charge.
Results from the models and the imposed effluent limita-
tions for the City of Greensboro wastewater treatment plant alter-
natives are provided in Table 111-3. It should be noted that these
limitations assigned represent the most stringent effluent limita-
tions that the State of North Carolina can legally impose.
To satisfy these effluent limitations, the existing treat-
ment facilities can be improved with the addition of nitrification
facilities and multimedia filtration. These unit processes are
consistent with the most sophisticated treatment required for the
removal of SOD 5 , NH 3 -N, and TSS. The installation of these facil-
ities represents a maximum attempt at meeting the stringent stan-
dards.
New. treatment plants designed to provide this necessary
level of treatment can include a two-stage aeration system. The
first stage is used to satisfy the carbonaceous BOD, whereas the
second stage will satisfy the nitrogenous BOD and NH 3 -N is removed.
This same degree of treatment can be attained with a single-stage
system, but the possibility of plant upsets due to substrate toxi-
city increases and, consequently, reliability decreases. Because
of the nature and potential toxicity of the industrial wastewater
discharged to the municipal facilities in the study area, a single-
stage biological treatment system is not recommended and would
probably not receive an NPDES discharge permit.
111-23
-------
TABLE 111—3
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Design Flow BOD Ultimate BOD 5 NH3—N TSS Fecal Coliform
Alternative Description ( MGD) ( in /L) ( mg/P .) ( mg/P.) ( m f P.) #/100 niP .
1 North Buffalo 16 32 6 4 30 1000
South Buffalo (Existing) 20 39 11 5 30 1000
2 North Buffalo 16 32. 6 4 30 1000
New South Buffalo 20 39 11 5 30 1000
(14,000 L.F. downstream)
3 North Buffalo 16 32 6 4 30 1000
New South Buffalo 20 39 11 5 30 1000
(26,000 L.F. downstream)
4 North Buffalo 16 32 6 4 30 1000
Conf1u ce Site 20 28 6 3 30 1000
-
5 North Buffalo 16 32 6 4 30 1000
Buffalo 20 42 18 6 30 1000
6 Phase I:
North Buffalo 16 38 6 4 30 1000
South Buffalo (Existing) 11 52 14 7 30 1000
Phase II:
North Buffalo 25 28 6 3 30 1000
South Buffalo (Existing) 11 52 14 7 30 1000
7 No Action:
North Buffalo (Existing) 18 32 6 4 30 1000
South Buffalo (Existing) 11 52 14 7 30 1000
-------
Additional facilities for a new treatment plant can in-
clude primary clarification before the two-stage aeration facil-
ities, final clarification, filtration, and disinfection. The con-
struction of these facilities will also represent a maximum attempt
to attain the imposed effluent limitations.
F. Evaluation of Alternatives
The evaluation of the environmental impacts and the
economic costs of the system alternatives is summarized in this
section. A more detailed account of the evaluations is included
in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). In this section
the methodology utilized in the evaluation is reviewed first and
is followed by presentation of the results. A final subsection
gives the conclusions based on the analysis of the alternatives.
1. General Methodolo
The methodology for evaluating alternatives was the
development of independent rankings of costs, using various mea-
sures of economic effectiveness, and of environmental impact, gaged
from the superposition of the various treatment systems, described
in this chapter, on the environment of the study area, as described
in Chapter II, Existing Environment.
a. Environmental Rankings
A multilevel environmental assessment of the 124 iden-
tified alternatives was performed to incorporate environmental
factors into the alternative selection process. The levels of
analysis included the following steps:
1. Identification of sensitive environmental areas
and issues as related to each of the sites comprising
the 124 alternatives
111-25
-------
cost of new wastewater treatment facilities. Biological sludges
were considered to be dewatered with vacuum filters and inciner-
ated with ultimate disposal of ash at the existing landfill site.
A small portion of the sludges at the North Buffalo plant will be
anaerobically digested to maintain the existing digesters for
back-up capability. At the South Buffalo plant, sludges were
assumed to be stabilized in the existing anaerobic digesters and
dewatered by vacuum filters. Phosphorus and nitrogen removal were
not included in the design basis for any alternative system since
nutrient removal is not specified by the design effluent limita-
tions.
2. Results
The rankings produced by the environmental and economic
evaluations of the alternatives are presented in the following
subsections.
a. Environmental Rankings
The Greensboro EIS Advisory Committee was provided ma-
terials on meaning for each of the environmental categories in Table
111-4. Education and information sessions were also held to pro-
vide additional understanding of their relationships to the Greens-
boro area. A detailed version of Chapter II was prepared for re-
vies by the Greensboro EIS Advisory Committee to add to their un-
derstanding of the elements of the environment as they now exist.
After this educational process, each member was asked
to judge the importance of each environmental category relative to
the others to the Greensboro area environment. The values were
normalized, averaged, and squared to reduce citizens responses to
a single weighting function for each category (RA-R-406).
111-28
-------
The categories have been arranged in order of perceived
importance in Table 111-5. Two categories, protection of water
quality of area streams and protection of water quality of area
lakes were judged to be the most important, with a weighting value
of 1.42. Closely following were concern for maintenance of air
quality with a weighting value of 1.27. Other categories ranged
from 1.13 for ground water flow down to .70 for terrestrial fauna
and cultural resources.
For technical evaluation of the impact upon each environ-
Tuental category, a multidisciplinary professional jury was assem-
bled. Assessments were made for each major component of each can-
didate alternative. A total of 22 components were evaluated and
then appropriate components were combined to comprise the systems
under study. A detailed description of the components are con-
tained in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406) and are sum-
marized in Table 111-6 with the resulting degree of relative ad-
verse itipact for each alternative. The range of adverse impacts
is from a low of 0.612 for upgrading North Buffalo plant to a high
of 7.333 for No Action. The component impact values were processed
with the environmental evaluation system to ascertain the more en-
vironmentally acceptable alternatives. These are presented accor-
ding to environmental rank as FOM’s in Table 111-7.
Alternative 6 was determined to be the most environmen-
tally acceptable of the final six alternatives submitted for de-
tailed evaluation. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were found to be
essentially equivalent in environmental acceptability. FOM’s of
6.230, 6.242, and 6.362 were computed for Alternatives 3, 2, and
1, respectively.
An additional set of factors was considered in the eval-
uation process. Some impacts were considered to be of sufficient
severity to be flagged as particularly important. These impacts
111-29
-------
TABLE 111—5
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES
AS JUDGED BY GREENSBORO CITIZENS REVIEW GROUP
Weighting Natural Man-Made
Factor Envirofl!neflt Environment Category
1.42 1 Water Quality of Streams
1.42 1 Water Quality of Lakes
1.27 2 Air Quality
1.27 2 Ground Water Quality
1.13 3 Streamfiow and Surface
Water Quality
1.12 4 Ground Water Flow
1.07 5 Odor
1.00 6 Biologically Sensitive
Areas
1.00 6 Existing Land Use
.99 7 Future Industrial Land
Use
99 7 Future Residential Land
Use
95 8 Taxes and Budgeting
.90 9 Resource Use Patterns
.88 10 Natural Vegetation
.85 11 Future Agricultural Land
Use
.85 11 Other Future Land Uses
.83 12 Community Services and
Facilities
.82 13 Aquatic Biota
.82 13 Transportation System
.80 14 Ongoing Projects and
Programs
.78 15 Noise
.77 16 Substrate Suitability
for Projected Uses
.70 17 Terrestrial Fauna
.70 17 Cultural Resources
111-30
-------
TABLE 111—6
Component
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
***16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Upgrade NBP* to 16 MGD
Expand NBP to 25 MGD in 1987
Upgrade SBP* to 11
Upgrade and expand
**New 20 MGD plant on
New 20 MCD plant on
New 20 MCD plant on
New 20 MCD plant on
Outfall sewer from SBP
Outfall sewer from SBP
Outfall sewer from SBP
Outfall sewer from SBP
Outfall sewer from Site
Outfall/force main from
Component Contained
in System Number
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
5
1, 2,
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Relative Degree
of Adverse Impact
0.612
1.381
0.905
1.771
2.826
2.873
3.015
3.675
2.447
2.447
4.238
4.608
3.013
2.447
1.743
1.719
1.146
1.146
0.784
0.625
1.716
7.333
*NBP = Existing North Buffalo Treatment Plant
SBP = Existing South Buffalo Treatment Plant
**por new site locations refer to Figure Ill—I
***Those environmental categories that could not be assessed at the component level were
evaluated at the system level.
Component
Description
ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM COMPONENTS ENVIRONMENTALLY EVALUATED
BY MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROFESSIONAL JURY AND RESULTING RELATIVE IMPACTS
I-I
H
H
H
14GD
SBP to 20 MGD
SB at Site 4
SB at Site 5
SB at Site 6
Buffalo at Sitel
to Site 4
to Site 5
toSite6
to Site 7
7 to Reedy Fork
SBP to Hwy 70
Alternative System Number 1
Alternative System Number 2
Alternative System Number 3
Alternative System Number 4
Alternative System Number 5
Alternative System Number 6
No Action Alternative
Force main from SBP to NBP
6
-------
TABLE 111—7
ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Rank FOM Value* System Alternative
1 7.533 6
2 6.278** 1,2,3
3 5.837 4
4 5.490 5
5 0.667 7
*Higher numbers are more environmentally acceptable
**Average FOM for AlternatIves 1, 2, 3
are not reflected equitably in the environmental evaluation system
and were studied separately. For each environmental category re-
ceiving such an evaluation, a “Red Flag” was assigned. Table 111-8
lists the categories receiving red flags and corresponding alter-
native systems.
The presence of a red flag may in itself cause a particu-
lar alternative to be eliminated from further consideration depend-
ing upon its significance, regardless of how the alternative ranked
in the FOM evaluation. For example, Alternative 2, although rank-
ing the second environmental category was red flagged because it
contains a century-old highly productive family farm on the site
considered for construction of a new wastewater treatment plant.
Guidelines from the President’s Council on Environmental Quality
discourage removing prime agricultural land from productivity if
other alternatives will provide accommodation of the project needs.
Additional factors that influenced the evaluation process
were social in nature. After careful consideration of all factors
involved in the selection process (cost, environmental, engineer-
ing, and implementability), the EPA Administrator of Region IV de-
termined that the continued existence of the South Buffalo plant
111-32
-------
TABLE 111—8
Environmental
Category
Air Quality
Noise
Water Quality of Streams
Water Quality of Lakes
Streamfiow and Surface
Water Quality
Natural Vegetation
Aquatic Biota
Substrate Suitability
Existing Land Use
Future Industrial Land Use
Future Residential Land
Use
Future Agricultural Land
Use
Transportation System
Community Services
and Facilities
Ongoing Projects and
Programs
Resource Use Patterns
Compànent
No Action
15
No Action
No Action
No Action
9,10,11,12,13,14
13, No Action
No Action
4, No Action
No Action
No Action
4 5,7,No Action
15, No Action
No Action
No Action
Alternative
System
No Action
6
No Action
No Action
No Action
1,2,3,4,5
5, No Action
No Action
1, No Action
No Action
No Action
1,24,No Action
6, No Action
No Action
No Action
was not socially a ceptáble in any alternative. This decision
was based upon the history of odor problems with the plant and
the large number of people that had been adversely affected by
this pollutant (RA-.R-.406).
Consequently, with elimination of the existing South
Buffalo site, the number of alternatives was reduced from seven
to five, alternatives 2, 3, 4, , and No Action. With Alternative
ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES AND SYSTEMS RECEIVING
RED FLAGS DURING ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
No Action
No Action
111-33
-------
2 containing the highly productive farm land, the surviving alter-.
natives from which the proposed action was selected were 3, 4, 5,
and No Action.
b. Cost Rankings
Detailed cost estimates for each system alternative
including capital costs and operation and maintenance costs are
provided in a supplementary cost document to this EIS. The cost
estimates reported are not necessarily the final cost estimates
for construction of the facilities. The final estimates will be
determined by the design engineering contractor and will reflect
current equipment and construction costs at the time of construc-
tion. The cost estimates contained herein do approximate the
expected costs and provide a sound basis for a confident cost
evaluation and comparison.
The cost summary and comparison of system alternatives
are provided in Table 111-9. Total capital costs are amortized
over a 20-year period at an interest rate of 6-3/8 percent and
are added to the respective total annual operation and maintenance
costs to determine total annual cost. Total annual operation and
maintenance costs are based on a design flow of 36.0 MGD. Addi-
tionally, the total treatment cost of each system alternative is
provided to facilitate economic ranking. For the No Action alter-
native, costs were based on upgrading the existing facilities to
meet the proposed effluent limitations and providing additional
required service with septic tanks.
Table 111-10 provides a ptesent worth cost ranking and
the associated user’s costs for the seven alternatives including
the No Action alternative. Assumptions for the present worth anal-
ysis include an interest rate of 6-3/8 percent, a useful life of
30 years for all structures except incinerators, 20 years for
111-34
-------
TABLE 111—9
COST SUMMARY AND C(}IPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
AMORITIZED 1
SYSTEM CAPITAL CAPITAL COSTS O&M COST 2 TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES COSTS ($)(106) ( $/ YR)(10 6 ) ( $/YR)(10 6 ) COST ($/YR)(10 6 ) COST ($IMG )
1 21.665 1.917 3.000 4.947 380
2 31.665 2.845 2.441 5.286 400
3 33.345 2.996 2.447 5.443 410
4 36.215 3.254 2.437 5.691 430
5 43.705 3.927 2.439 6.366 480
6 21.226 1.907 2.585 4.492 340
7 — No Action 26.902 2.384 2.450 4.834 370
1 Based on 20 years @ 6—318Z interest for WWTP’s and 30 years @ 8% for septic tanks.
2 Based on design flow of 36.0 MGD.
-------
TABLE 111—10
PRESENT WORTH AND USER’S COSTS OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
SYSTEM PRESENT WORTH ANNUAL USER’S COST
ALTERNATIVE MILLION $ x 106 ( $/HOusEH0LD/yR )
1 52.853 42.70
2 55.760 36.30
3 57.207 36.60
4 59.223 36.90
5 65.431 38.20
6 48.867 36.60
7 — No Action 53.407 48.70
incinerators, 50 years for all piping, and a design period of 20
years. Land is assumed not to depreciate. User’s cost is based
on the total local capital costs and municipal operation and main-
tenance costs for a sewered population of 255,000.
3. Other Evaluation Criteria
Other criteria for ranking or evaluating the selected
alternatives include itnplementability, reliability, and resource
utilization. These criteria are considered as secondary informa-
tion for selection of the proposed action.
a. Implementability
All six alternatives under investigation can be imple-
mented considering engineering and construction factors. However,
further expansion of proposed systems at existing plant sites will
require special considerations. The North Buffalo Creek plant
would be the more difficult to expand owing to the limited acreage
on which the existing facilities are located. Any proposed expan-
sion would necessarily be located across the North Buffalo Creek,
111-36
-------
nearer the shopping center and additional flood protection would
be required. The expansion of the South Buffalo plant would re-
quire the acquisition of A & T University land and additional flood
protection would be required as well as possible additional chan-
nelization of South Buffalo Creek. However, sufficient acreage
does exist and no other significant engineering constraints which
would limit the implementability of this expansion are apparent.
Land availability for the new treatment plant sites is more than
sufficient and no foreseeable technical problems exist at any of
these sites.
Public opposition to all of the alternatives has been
expressed from various groups. This observation is well-documen-
ted in public hearings held concerning this project and is con-
firmed with the associated public involvement. It is doubtful
whether any alternative selected will receive full public accep-
tance, and any ranking based on impletnentability would be subject
to serious question. -
b. Reliability
The design and construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities which incorporate recent technology and treatment me-
thods will offer more reliability and performance than improvement
and/or expansion of existing facilities. The efficiency of the
existing trickling filters at both plants is temperature-dependent
and in cool weather these filters provide little treatment. Addi-
tionally, the existing facilities offer little resistance to the
occasional occurrence of industrial toxic loadings. In the future,
the city will mitigate the potential for these occurrences by re-
quiring adequate pre-treatment of wastewater entering the municipal
plants.
111-37
-------
The proposed two-stage biological system for new plants
is less temperature-dependent and is less susceptible to plant
upset related to toxic loadings. The possibilities for consistent
attainment of the imposed stringent effluent limitations is much
greater with the new facility than with improved existing facili-
ties. Therefore, alternatives which incorporate the use of a new
treatment facility will provide a greater degree of reliability
and performance than alternatives which utilized expanded existing
facilities.
c. Resource Utilization
Resources required for the construction and operation
of the treatment plant improvements are relatively small compared
to the total resource use in the study area. While plant site
energy consumption for pumps, blowers, and sludge incinerators
is high, the treatment service is necessary and will impose only
very slight incremental demand on local utilities. Since resource
requirements for all of the alternatives have been judged to be of
only minor significance, the utility of a differential resource
use ranking is questionable and would probably be misleading.
Thus, it was not an appreciable factor in this selection process.
G. Conclusions
After careful review of the environmental and economic
evaluations, system Alternative 3 was selected as the proposed
action for the Draft EIS. This alternative recommends upgrading
the North Buffalo Creek treatment plant at 16.0 MGD and construc-
tion of a new 20.0 MGD facility approximately 26,000 lineal feet
downstream of the existing South Buffalo Creek plant which will
be abandoned. This alternative will provide the necessary ser-
vice, including capacity and level of treatment, to satisfy both
the municipal and industrial demands of the study area throughout
the design period.
II:-38
-------
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action for wastewater treatment facil-
ities’ improvements for the City of Greensboro, includes main-
taining and upgrading the existing North Buffalo treatment plant
at 16.0 MGD and construction of a new 20.0 MGD facility approxi-
mately 26,000 lineal feet downstream of the existing South
Buffalo Creek facility. A new sixty-inch, 26,000-foot outfall
from th existing South Buffalo to the new facility will also
be constructed. The South Buffalo Creek plant will be abandoned
and dismantled and the existing city-owned site will become
available for other desired uses. Figure IV-l shows the location
and size of the proposed facilities with respect to the City of
Greensboro.
A. Description of Proposed Facilities
All advanced wastewater treatment plants constructed in
the State of North Carolina are required to meet the Reliability
Class I criteria as outlined in EPA-430-99-29-O0l (EN-6l0). All
processes described herein will be designed using that criteria.
1. Existing North Buffalo Facility
The existing North Buffalo treatment plant provides
facilities for preliminary treatment, primary treatment, second-
ary treatment, and chlorination. Primary and waste-activated
sludge is thickened and dewatered with vacuum filters before
incineration and ultimate disposal in the nearby landfill site.
To meet the imposed stringent effluent limitations,
this facility can be upgraded by improving or modifying selected
existing unit processes as well as constructing new additional
processes. The following description of possible improvements
‘V-i
-------
FIGURE IV-1
PROPOSED
2 3 4
. .h. .P
SCALE IN MILES
I
p . ,)
‘C)
5
e
T
ACTION
-------
and additions includes a brief inventory of existing unit
processes. This approach will place the recommended proposed
action into perspective for reviewing purposes.
The existing preliminary treatment facilities include
a bar rack and screen, grit collector, and flow meter. These
facilities were originally designed for a capacity of 18.0 MGD
and should be sufficient for the proposed 16.0 MGD design
capacity.
The existing primary treatment facilities include four
identical rectangular clarifiers. Each clarifier is 80 feet
long, 40 feet wide, and 15 feet deep. With a total surface area
of 12,800 square feet, the design overflow rate at 16.0 MGD
would be approximately 1,250 gpd/ft 2 . This overflow rate is
slightly higher than the state recommended rate of 1,000 gpd/ft 2 ,
but can be considered marginal if the overall necessary level of
treatment can be attained.
Effluent from the primary clarifiers is lifted to
trickling filters. The existing lift station has a pumping
capacity of 18.0 MGD (average) and should be sufficient for the
proposed 16.0 MGD facility. Therefore, no additional inter-
mediate pumping facilities are recommended.
The existing trickling filter facilities include two
identical units with diameters of 200 feet and depths of 4 feet.
These facilities have a total surface area of 62,800 square feet
(1.44 acres) and a total volume of 251,200 cubic feet, and are
operated with 100 percent recirculation. Assuming a BOD 5 re-
moval efficiency of 20 percent, and continued 100 percent recir-
culatiOfl, the total organic loading on the trickling filters at
16.0 MGD is 8,330 pounds/acre-feet/day. This loading is ex-
reniely high and modifications are necessary if these facilities
IV-3
-------
are to continue being used as roughing filters. Possible inodi-
fications can include increasing the filter depth and volume,
replacement of the existing media with a plastic media, and re-
duction in recirculation.
The existing aeration tank facilities include four
identical rectangular units each with a length of 261 feet,
width of 42 feet, and a depth of 13 feet. With a total volume
of 570,000 cubic feet, these facilities will provide a detention
time of approximately 6.4 hours at 16.0 MCD. This detention
time should be sufficient to provide nitrification if adequate
aeration is provided without excess mixing.
The existing aeration facilities provide a blower
capacity of approximately 14,000 cfm. Assuming an oxygen re-
quirement of 1.5 pounds per pound of BOD 5 removed and 4.6 pounds
per pound of ammonia-nitrogen (NH 3 -N) removed, additional blower
capacity of 7,000 cfm for a total of 21,000 cfm is necessary to
satisfy the effluent limitations. This aeration will provide a
mixing capability of 37 cfm per 1,000 cubic feet of aeration
basins which is slightly high but marginally acceptable.
Existing final clarifiers include five circular tanks;
two with diameters of 75 feet and depths of 16 feet, two with
diameters of 90 feet and depths of 15 feet, and one with a di-
ameter of 75 feet and depth of 13 feet. At a design flow of
16.0 MCD, the total surface area of 25,960 square feet will pro-
vide an overflow rate of 620 gpd/ft 2 . With a total volume of
389,460 cubic feet, the average hydraulic detention time will
be approximately 4.4 hours. These parameters are well within
the acceptable limits and no additional final clarifiers are
required.
IV-4
-------
The North Buffalo Creek facility does not have facili-
ties providing multimedia filtration. To achieve and maintain
the BOD 5 limitation of 6 mgI9 , it is necessary that additional
treatment be provided. The use of multimedia filters after ni-
trification would represent a cost-effective maximum attempt for
achieving the stringent limitations. As recommended by the
State of North Carolina, municipal multimedia filters should
have a design hydraulic loading of no more than 3 gpm/ft 2 .
This loading rate will require a total surface area of approxi-
mately 3,700 square feet.
In addition to the multimedia filters, an intermediate
lift station will probably be necessary for loading the filters.
This pump station should have a capacity to lift the design flow
of 16.0 MGD.
For adequate disinfection, the State of North Carolina
requires a minimum detention time of 30 minutes for average flow
conditions. To provide this detention time for 16.0 MCD, a tank
size of approximately 44,560 cubic feet is required. The exist-
ing contact chamber has a volume of 35,625 cubic feet and an ad-
ditional volume of approximately 9,000 cubic feet must be pro-
vided to satisfy regulations. However, if the new multimedia
filters are placed downstream of the chlorination facilities,
additional chlorine contact time in the filters may be sufficient
for adequate disinfection. This proposed action is not neces-
sarily recommended but only suggested for consideration. Any
such variance will require the review and approval of both state
and federal agencies.
With the existing North Buffalo facilities and possible
modifications discussed herein, the North Buffalo Creek plant
should provide adequate treatment for 16.0 MGD and produce a
water quality acceptable for discharge into North Buffalo Creek.
IV-5
-------
}lowever, presently unforeseen problems may exist, and additional
treatment may become necessary once this facility is on-line and
operating properly.
Primary and waste-activated sludge at the North Buffalo
Creek plant is thickened, dewatered with vacuum filters, and in-
cinerated. Ash is disposed of at the nearby landfill site. Ad-
ditionally, a two-stage anaerobic digestion facility is available
but is used only as a backup to the sludge handling facilities
described. Stabilized sludge is dewatered with the vacuum fil-
ters and disposed of at the existing landfill site.
The existing primary sludge thickener has a diameter
of 60 feet and a depth of 8 feet providing a surface area of
2,830 square. feet and a volume of 22,640 cubic feet. Based on
a solids loading rate of 10 pounds/square foot/day, the primary
sludge thickener has the capacity to process approximately 14.2
tons of sludge/day. With an estimated primary sludge production
of only 3.5 tons/day at 16.0 MCD, the existing primary sludge
thickener should be sufficient.
The existing waste-activated sludge floatation thicken-
er has a total surface area of 100 square feet. Based on a
solids loading rate of 30 pounds/square foot/day, the flotation
thickener can process approximatley 1.5 tons of sludge/day.
With an estimated waste-activated sludge production of approxi-
mately 6 tons/day, an additional surface area of approximately
300 square feet is necessary.
The existing vacuum filters include two identical
units with a surface area of 360 square feet each. Assuming
a filter yield of 3.5 pounds/square foot/hour and 56 hours of
operation per week, the existing facilities have adequate
capacity. However, it is recommended that an additional identi-
cal (360 square foot) unit be provided to allow for inevitable
downtime.
IV-6
-------
The existing sludge incinerator has a capacity of two
to three tons per hour and need only operate four hours per day
to process all of the sludge produced. Therefore, no additional
incineration capacity is necessary. This incinerator is currently
fueled with natural gas and no associated air pollution has been
observed. However, with dwindling supplies of natural gas, it
may become more economical to switch to fuel oil at a later date.
Electrical costs to operate the improved North Buffalo
facility will approach approximately $300,000 per year at 16.0
MCD. This cost represents an equivalent electrical annual con-
sumption of approximately 8,500 megawatt hours, less than 0.5
percent of the electrical consumption of Greensboro.
With the exception of a masking agent for odor control,
the only chemicals used at the North Buffalo Creek plant is chlor-
ine for disinfection. At the design flow of 16.0 MGD, approximately
200 tons of chlorine will be required annually at a cost of approx-
imately $36,000
Construction of the North Buffalo Creek facility improve-
ments will be limited to the present site boundaries and no addi-
tional land should be required. Future expansion or improvements
will be difficult owing to the limited acreage and, if required,
will necessarily be provided across the North Buffalo Creek. All
proposed improvements and construction should be complete within
12 to 18 months after construction begins but may vary depending
on available materials and time required for deliveries.
A schematic of the proposed North Buffalo Creek plant
and improvements and the projected pollutant removal or mass bal-
ance for each level of treatment is shown in Figure IV-2. Figure
IV-3 shows a possible layout of the actual proposed facilities.
However, other possibilities exist and this proposed layout and
improvements should in no way constrain the design engineers.
iv-7
-------
TWO-STARE ANAEROBIC
DIGEST1ON (BACKUP)
ASH TO
FL
CO NUT
TM
DWFUSED AERATION
In? 1i nt — PrelI 1nary
IO U . 250 ag/f
155 •lSOag/c
• 20 .91t
4 Assid Equal to asvrrd TEN
I0 U 260 agic
ISS — 150 .g/t
MIrN • 20 .gIL
Tr ckHng
IOU 1 .2 t
TSS —90.9/f
1H 3 —N • 20 • _/t
Activated Sludge lSulti.edia
• 150 .9/f B0D 12 .9/c
.S Og/t TSS •25ag/t
•20.g/f NI,-N •4.9/t
Filters Disinfect Ix
SOD 5 •6 .g/t
TSS • 18 ag/f
NH 7 —lI 4 .9/f
8OU =6mg/i
TSS •18m9,
104,—N = 4 ag/
Feca) Colifor. < 1000/al
FIGURE IV—2 SCHEMATiC OF PROPOSED NORTh BUFFALO CREEK FACILITY WITH IMPROVEMENTS
INCINERATOR
EXISTiNG FACILITIES
PROPOSED FACILITIES
RETURN SLUDGE
TREAT&ENT
ROUGHING
FILTERS
AERATIO 4 BASIN
BAR
c,LTEP BAC$c WASH
CONTROL BUU.DING
AND LABORATORY
PREWmNARY
TREATtENI
LET STATION
MULTINEDIA FLIERS
CIN.ORINE CONTACT
NORTH BUFFALO
Tre a nt Priry 1rea nt
F i 1 tei s
155
-------
I-I
PROPOSED MULTIMEDIA FILTERS
SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
NAEROBIC DIGESTERS
FIGURE IV-3
PROPOSED NORTH BUFFALO CREEK
PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
-------
The North Buffalo Creek facility currently employs 2L
personnel for operation and maintenance. With the recommended
improvements, an additional 16 employees will be necessary to
properly operate this plant in an attempt to meet effluent limi-
tations. This facility should be staffed with approximately twenty-
five personnel on weekdays, five on weeknights, and ten on week-
ends. The complete staff of forty personnel should include two
for supervisory, one for clerical, twenty-one for operations, ten
for maintenance, three for laboratory, and three for yardwork.
2. New South Buffalo Facility
The proposed new 20.0 MCD South Buffalo Creek facility
will provide raw waste pumping, preliminary treatment, primary
treatment, two-stage aeration for nitrification, multimedia fil-
tration, and chlorination. Primary and waste-activated sludge
will be thickened, dewatered, and incinerated before ultimate
disposal in the existing landfill site. This existing landfill
site has a design life of approximately 12 years, but with the
addition of a proposed pulverizer, the life will be extended to
approximately 20 years. Therefore, this. existing site should be
sufficient throughout the design period.
Because this new facility will be located above the
one-hundred year floodplain, a raw waste pumping station will be
required to lift the raw waste from the end of the proposed new
sixty-inch outfall. This pump station will be located in the
floodplain and will require flood protection. The pump should
be designed for peak pumping capacity of approximately 40 MGD.
The preliminary treatment facilities will include bar
racks and screens, a comminutor, grit collector, and flow measur-
ing device. These facilities will also be designed for a peak
capacity of 40 MGD.
‘v-b
-------
Primary clarifiers will be constructed to provide an
overflow rate of 1,000 gpd/ft 2 at 20.0 MGD. This design criteria
jll require a total primary clarifier surface area of 20,000
square feet. These facilities may be either circular or rectan-
gular in shape. A minimum of three parallel facilities should be
provided in the design.
Primary sedimentation will be followed by two-stage
jolOgiCal oxidation with clarification following each stage.
The first stage will satisfy the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD), while the second stage should satisfy the nitro-
genous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD). A minimum hydraulic de-
tention time of four hours in the first stage and five hours in
the second stage will be necessary. Clarifiers following the first
9 tage should provide a maximum overflow rate of 800 gpd/ft 2 at
20.0 MGD, while clarifiers following the second stage should pro-
vide a maximum overflow rate of 600 gpd/ft 2 . The aeration basins
aS well as the clarifiers should be designed for parallel construc-
tion with a minimum of three basins or tanks for each process.
rthjs type of design will allow for increased flexibility and per-
formance during operation. Each tank should be sized for only
the portion of total flow that it will treat.
Assuming an oxygen requirement of 1.5 pounds per pound
f B0D removed and 4.6 pounds per pound of NH 3 -N removed, the
blower capacity required is approximately 45,000 cfrn. This blower
capacity can be provided with a different aeration system. A
suffi .ent number of blowers should be provided to enable the de-
0 jgn oxygen transfer to be maintained with the layout capacity
jt out of service.
Multimedia filters are necessary for attaining the strin-
gent effluent limitations and will be designed for a hydraulic
‘oading of 3 gpm/ft 2 . The existing movable tertiary filters at
‘v-li
-------
the South Buffalo Creek plant should be salvaged and installed
with this new facility. However, these existing filters are de-
signed for only 6 MGD and additional facilities for the remaining
14 MCD must be constructed.
Disinfection will be provided with chioriantion facil-
ities including a contact basin and a chlorine feed system. To
provide the required contact time of 30 minutes, a minimum cham-
ber volume of 55,700 cubic feet is necessary.
Approximately 20 tons/day of primary and waste-activated
sludge will be removed for processing and ultimate disposal. As-
suming a solids loading rate of 10 pounds/square foot/day, approx-
imately. 4,000 square feet of flotation-thickened surface area will
be required. The thickened sludge can be dewatered with vacuum
filters before incineration. These vacuum filters will require
a minimum surface area of 1,400 square feet assuming a filter
yield of 3.5 pounds/square foot/hour and 56 hours of operation
per week. A two to three ton/day capacity incineration should
be sufficient for this new facility and will probably require fuel
oil for operation. Scrubbers or other air pollution control equip
ment must be installed and will be required to comply with new
source performance standards.
Electrical costs to operate the new facility will approx...
imate $400,000 per year at 20.0 MCD. This cost represents an equi-
valent electrical annual consumption of approximately 11,500 mega-
watt-hours, about 0.5 percent of the total electrical consumption
in Greensboro.
The only chemical which will be used at the site is
chlorine for disinfection. At the design flow of 20.0 MCD , approx..
imately 250 tons of chlorine will be required annually at a cost
of approximately $45,000.
IV-12
-------
Construction of the new facility will require approxi-
mately 40 acres of land out of approximately 400 acres which are
available to the city. This proposed site will offer little con-
straint to future expansion and improvements. Construction of
this facility should be complete within 24 to 30 months after
construction begins but may vary depending on available materials
and time required for deliveries.
A schematic of the proposed new facility and projected
pollutant removal or mass balance for each level of treatment is
shown in Figure IV—4. Figure IV-5 shows a possible layout of the
actual proposed facilities; however, other possibilities exist and
this proposed layout should in no way constrain the design engineers.
Figure IV-6 is an artist’s conception of the proposed new facility.
A true or useful hydraulic profile through this facility
can not be completed until the detailed drawings and specifications
included in the 201 Step II activities are completed. The selec-
tion, arrangement, and placement of necessary facilities will de-
pend on a detailed site survey including topographical features
and engineering geologic characteristics. However, it is estimated
that incoming wastewater will be lifted approximately 55 feet from
the outfall elevation of approximately 675 feet to the preliminary
treatment facilities located at an elevation of 730 feet. The
profile through the plant will be dependent on the arrangement and
particular design of the unit processes. The treated wastewater
will be discharged back to the South Buffalo Creek at a stream
surface elevation of approximately 690 feet.
The existing South Buffalo Creek facility currently em-
ploys 17 personnel for operation and maintenance. This new facil-
ity should be staffed with approximately twenty-five personnel on
weekdays, eight on weeknights, and twelve on weekends for a total
employment of forty-five. The complete staff should include three
IV-13
-------
IIENG
I
CO ITR a ‘ A LA OPATORY
4t $ ___
1 ir i I
M(E.TI DIA F1LTEfiE
____________________ __________________ ___________________ Tw —St&
Iftf1u flt Prrli.ii .ry Tr.at nt Prl.iry Treat rrt Blologitil O d.tlor *.1tI d . Filtratlor Dis nfect1on . _
soDs ?6S /t SOO • 26S .gR 8OO — 100 .ojt 0001 18 ugh 0003 Ii ug/t BOO, ii mg/ I
TSS • 250 .sjt 1SS • 250 mg/I ISS 125 ug/t TSS • 35 g/t ISS • 25 .0 /1 TSS • 25 mg/I
NI,.0 ?Sught(asgu.e ) P 1 1 ,-N 2Smg/t NN ,.N.2 5 . 0 / 1 NI l,_I.5.uJt 811,-I •5.g/g 0 1 1,-I. 5mg/I
Fecal CoH form • 1000/mt
RAW IEWA LWT $TAT1ON
$ c i
FIGURE IV-4 SCHEMATiC OF PROPOSED NEW SOUTh BUFFALO CREEK FACIUTY
-------
I -I
I- ’
-------
4-i _ ;:
li T ! T -]
T --•. -
( )
.
FIGURE IV-6
ARTIST’S COWCEPTION OF PROPOSED NEW SOUTH BUFFALO PLANT
-------
for supervisory, one for clerical, twenty-five for operations,
ten for maintenance, three for laboratory, and three for yardwork.
3. Collection and Sewer System
No specific collection/interceptor system expansion is
included with this proposed action. However, as the city contin-
ues to grow, additional sewer service and collection system will
necessarily be provided.
To transfer the raw wastewater from the existing South
Buffalo plant to the new facility, a new 26,000-foot, 60-inch
outfall sewer will be constructed along South Buffalo Creek. This
outfall will be located away from the stream as much as possible
to minimize adverse impacts. The location of this outfall is
shown with the proposed action in Figure IV-l.
IV- 17
-------
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General
The proposed action has been analyzed to determine the
primary and secondary impacts and the short-term or long-term
nature of these impacts. Some impacts described in this chapter,
including primary water quality impacts and numerous secondary
impacts related to the growth of the Greensboro urban area, ad-
dress conditions that will prevail only at the end of the 20-year
design period. Initial operational impacts will be considerably
less than these ultimate conditions, but they will gradually in-
crease to the level of effect described herein. The impact analy-
sis focuses on the wastewater treatment plants and system des-
cribed in Chapter IV.
To facilitate reference and integration with results
presented in Chapter II, Existing Environment, the discussion
of impacts follows the outline used in Chapter II. Impacts are
discussed for each environmental parameter or category, and both
beneficial and adverse effects are considered. Value judgements
have been avoided to maintain objectivity, but some impacts have
been assessed primarily on the basis of professional judgement in
the absence of definitive information. On the other hand, some
impacts have been evaluated using quantitative or semi-quantita-
tive methods, and some have been assessed by using a data base
that is too detailed to incorporate into the Draft EIS. These
supplementary descriptions, data, concept formulations, and ra-
tionale are included in the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-
406) generated by the evaluation process. Higher order impacts
that must be considered pursuant to CEQ guidelines, such as ir-
reversible and irretrievable resource commitments and the relation-
ship of the project to long-term productivity, are integrated
into the discussions in this chapter.
V-i
-------
B. Natural Environment
The natural environment is comprised of those areas of
the total environment that are external to man and his social
organization. For consistency with Chapter II, impacts of the
proposed action upon the natural environment are presented in
two major components, physical and biological.
1. Physical Components
Impacts accruing from implementation of the proposed
action upon physical components of the environment, i.e., atmo-
sphere, land, water, and land/water interface, are described in
the subsections that follow.
a. Air Quality
The standard “criteria” pollutants describing air qual-
ity impacts are total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur diox-
ide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons (photo-
chemical oxidants). Not a part of the federal air quality stan-
dards but of concern to this project is the airborne pollutant,
odor. The impact of this pollutant is addressed in the next sec-
tion.
Of the five criteria air pollutants, only TSP (i.e.,
dust) is of any significance to the project. Small amounts of
the other pollutants will be emitted during construction and oper-
ation, but their impact on existing air quality will be negligible.
Fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction activities,
particularly for the South Buffalo interceptor and the new treat-
ment plant, will cause short-term local increase in TSP levels.
Studies have shown that the quantity of dust generated can be cor-
related with climate, soil type, and extent of construction activ-
ity (EN-071).
V-2
-------
From these studies, the amount of dust that will become
airborne and suspended were estimated. For the level of construc-
tion activity required for upgrading North Buffalo plant, building
the new South Buffalo plant, and abandoning the existing South Buf-
falo plant, the following amounts of TSP are expected to occur
per month of activity:
North Buffalo - negligible
Existing South Buffalo - 20 tons
New 20 MCD plant - 40 tons
These estimates are based on maximum expected emission rates of 1
ton of TSP per acre of construction activity. They represent ex-
treme maximum amounts that may occur; actual TSP levels may be
significantly less, depending on the factors listed above. They
do, however, provide clues that TSP generation could have an ad-
verse impact on air quality and, therefore, warrant consideration
for mitigative measures as described in Chapter VI.
Impacts on air quality of system operation employs pri-
marily electrically operated equipment and will, therefore, not
create a source of additional air pollutants. The proposed in-
cinerators for the new plant will be equipped with wet scrubbers
to limit air pollutant emissions. The North Buffalo plant is
currently operated with similar pollution control equipment (CR-
283). With properly functioning air pollution control equipment,
no appreciable degradation in air quality is expected from the
plant operations.
Secondary air quality impacts will occur due to growth-
related aspects of the proposed action. The population increases
that will accompany sewage capacity expansion will most likely
cause increases in air pollutant emissions in the study area.
Since Guilford County is an Air Quality Maintenance Area for TSP,
V-3
-------
governmental agencies are charged with the task of not allowing
such emission increases to violate any of the national or state
air quality standards. For the other pollutants, Guilford County
is within the standards. Increases in these other pollutants due
to growth are controlled by non-significant deterioration regula-
tions. It is not anticipated that the proposed action will have
any significant deleterious secondary air quality impacts.
b. Odor
This section addresses community impact of potential
odors emitted from components of the proposed action. Analysis
of impacts will center on odors emitted from the treatment plants.
No adverse impact is anticipated from any of the interceptors and
force mains. Pumping stations will rarely have odors associated
with their operations. Generally, the odor impacts of the pro-
posed action can be summarized as follows: (1) replacement of the
South Buffalo plant with a new plant at the site downstream should
have a significant benefit to the large population surrounding
the existing plant; (2) installation of the new South Buffalo
plant should have minor impact because of the low population den-.
sity within one mile of the proposed site and the large buffer
zone provided by the site; (3) the upgrading of the North Buffalo
plant to meet effluent limits in and of itself will not substan-
tially improve the odor situation at that plant. These aspects
will be discussed on a unit process basis below. Mitigating mea-
sures for certain processes may be desirable as discussed in Chap-
ters IV and VI.
The determination of odor impact from the new South Buf-
falo plant is based on a study performed to evaluate a proposed
plant site in Jacksonville, Florida (EN-483). Based on a compari-
son of public opinion regarding treatment plants in Ft. Lauderdale 1
Florida, and Canton, Ohio, a generalized odor impact model was
developed (see Figure V-l).
V-4
-------
DISTANCE FROM
Ft - TREATMENT PLANT
PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO
WILL IDENTIFY THE
PLANT AS A MAJOR
ODOR SOURCE
FIGURE V—i
GENERALIZED ODOR IMPACT MODEL
PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO WILL IDENTIFY PLANT
AS A MAJOR ODOR SOURCE
The referenced study shows that beyond one mile from a
plant, no significant impact should occur. In addition, the study
concluded that no wind-direction correlation could be determined.
That is, radial distance away from the plant is a more accurate
indicator of relative impact rather than direction from the plant.
This can be explained by the meteorological phenomena associated
with high odor levels. Periods of stagnation, i.e., light, var-
iable winds, generally occur in the summer. Hot summer tempera-
tures are also most conducive to odor generation at the treatment
plant. The light, variable winds transport the odors radially
in all directions from the plant. Thus, no one direction will
be affected more than another. The odors will also be dispersing
horizontally and vertically, thus reducing in concentration. At
V-5
-------
some distance away from the plant, the odor becomes imperceptible.
These basic conclusions should be similar for the new South Buffalo
plant site. The low population density within one mile of the
proposed site indicates that odor impacts should be small. Obvi-
ously if population densities surrounding the proposed site increase
during the planning period, a greater impact could be expected.
An indication of the percentage of people affected can be deter-
mined by use of Figure v-i.
Another approach to odor impact analysis is to investi-
gate the individual sources of odor at the treatment plant. At
the new South Buffalo plant odors may be produced during the pre-
treatment stage from the grit chamber. In addition, the primary
clarifiers may be an odor source of compounds such as hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia, etc. The sludge handling processes also may
produce objectionable odors. The vacuum filters are the most
probable source in the sludge operations. On the other hand, the
incineration step can be termed a positive odor impact because
most combustible malodorous compounds are destroyed.
It should be emphasized that the production of odors
at the plant will vary seasonally and daily according to plant
operating characteristics and prevailing weather conditions. Ob-
viously a well-designed and maintained plant is less likely to
produce objectionable odors.
The situation at the North Buffalo plant can be viewed
in a similar manner. The proposed action involves the upgrading
of the facilities at this plant. This action, per Se, will not
substantially reduce odors at the plant. Consequently, reviewing
Figure V-i, about 367 , 277 , and 187 (and so on) of people living
at distances of 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 feet of the site will be
affected by the plant odor emissions. This represents approximately
15, 193, and 213 people, respectively. The shopping center to the
V-6
-------
northwest will continue to experience occasional odor episodes.
The merits of installing additional odor controls at this plant
and at the new South Buffalo plant are discussed in Chapter VI.
c. Noise
(1) Methodology and Criteria
The methodology and criteria for predicting human and
animal responses to noise pollution generated by construction
and operation of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities are
presented in the paragraphs that follow.
Studies conducted and sponsored by EPA and others re-
sulted in the development of measures for determining levels of
noise and duration of exposure that causes varying levels of human
response (EN-108). The objective of these studies was to treat
noise as a pollutant and ascertain potential adverse health and
welfare effects. Using the World Health Organization definition
of health and welfare tI• .a total physical, physiological, and
psychological well-being of the individual” an array of noise
“doses” was established for estimating human responses.
A single measure, Ldfl, the long-term equivalent sound
level was devised. It uses, as the basis for calculation, a term
that approximates the hearing response of the human ear. This
term is called the A-weighted sound level. Ldfl also accounts for
varying responses of humans to noise for both day and nighttime
periods. It applies a 10 decibel (dB) penalty against noise gen-
erated during periods from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The criteria, in general, defines those noise levels
that are considered essential for safeguarding human health in
a variety of human activities. For the purpose of this assessment
V-7
-------
it may be assumed that when Ldfl exceeds 55 dB, noise pollution
will have an adverse impact. This level applies to “outdoor and
residential areas, farms and other outdoor areas where people
spend widely varying amounts of time, and in other places in which
quiet is the basis for use” (EN-108).
Additional measures are available for more detailed
analysis. The ability to communicate effective depends upon
the presence of noise that acts as a “masking” agent. Such noise
interferes with both face-to-face and telephone communications.
The values presented in Tables V-i and V-2 provide a tabulation
of- limiting sound level (as measured on the A-weighted scale of
a sound level meter) that will permit effective communication.
TABLE V-i
MAXIMUM A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS PHAT WILL PERMIT
UNDERSTANDABLE SPOKEN CO UNICATION
FOR VOICE LEVELS AND
LISTENER DISTANCES SH iN
Distance
(feet)
Ambient Sound Level in dBA
Vocal Effort
0
Low Normal Raised Very Loud
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
60 66 72 78
54 60 66 72
50 56 62 68
48 34 60 66
46 52 58 64
44 50 56 62
38 44 50 36
TABLE V-2
QUALITT OP TELEPHONE USAGE IN THE PRESENCE
OF STEADY—STATE MASKING NOISES
The above basis for noise evaluation covers most situ-
ations in the Greensboro area. However, in some very quiet sub-
urban and rural zones, it was necessary to assess impact on the
basis of “change” in sound level. This change is important in
assessing the acceptability of an added noise source. A 2-3 dB
increase is hardly noticeable, while a 5 dB change is readily ap-
parent. Most humans perceive a 10 dB change as doubling of the
loudness of sound and each additional 10 dB increase is judged as
doubling the loudness.
Noise Level Telephone Usage
(4RA) Quality
30—50 Satisfactory
50—63 Slightly Difficult
63—75 Difficult
Above 75 Unsatisfactory
V-8
-------
The effects of noise upon wildlife and domestic animals
are not well understood. Studies of animals subjected to varying
noise exposures in laboratories have demonstrated physiological
and behavioral changes, and it may be assumed that these reactions
are applicable to wildlife. However, no scientific evidence cur-
rently correlates the two. It is known that large animals adapt
quite readily to high sound levels. Conversely, it has been demon-
strated that loud noise disrupts brooding in poultry and conse-
quently can affect egg production.
The major effect of noise on wildlife is related to the
use of auditory signals. Acoustic signals are important for sur-
vival in some wildlife species. Probably the most important effect
is related to the prey-predator situation. An animal that relies
on its ears to locate prey and an animal that relies on its ears
to detect predators are both impaired by intruding noise. In addi-
tion, the reception of auditory mating signals could be limited,
and reproduction could be affected. Distress or warning signals
from mother animals to infants (or vice versa) or within groups
of social animals could be masked and such masking could lead to
increased mortality. There are clues that short-term high noise
levels may startle wild game birds and stop the brooding cycle
for an entire season (ME-050).
In this study, noise levels were predicted using a sim-
ple model that incorporates measured data from major sound sources
and standard acoustical field equations. Results will be presented
in terms of L as a function of distance from noise sources. Fig-
ure V-2 illustrates the basis for general assessment of expected
community respo4se to.various levels of noise.
V .9
-------
AVERAGE COMMU ITV
REACTION
60
VIGOROUS COMMUNITY
4 REACTION
II
40
- WIDESPREAD COMPLAINTS
z AND THREATS OF LEGAL
ACTION
-I
30— — ——
SPORADIC COMPLAINTS
U
C
LITTLE OR NO REACTION
10
— I
60 .86 60 65 70 75 80
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE NOISE. L ; IN dB
FIGURE V-2
EXPECTED COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO VARIOUS LEVELS OF NOISE
(2) Noise Impacts
General
Noise associated with the construction and operation of
the wastewater treatment system can be described as either short-
term or long-term. Short-term noise is that which will occur during
•the construction phases for sewer interceptors and sewage treat-
ment plants (STP’s); long-term noise results from operation of
the STP’s.
v-b
-------
Short-term noise is caused by activity of construction
equipment along and near interceptors and at each STP location.
To determine the possible adverse effects from construction, an
array of various construction equipment types was assumed. Based
on the radiated sound pressure level of each equipment item, pre-
dictions were performed using standard acoustical field equations
and assuming worst-case mitigating factors such as a standard day,
no attenuating barriers (such as trees) and acoustically-untreated
noise sources. This approach yields results that may be consid-
ered as a worst-case noise condition and will provide clues about
the adverse impact that may be caused.
Construction of an interceptor requires equipment that
is standard in earth-working and pipeline machinery inventories.
A right-of-way (ROW) is cleared with dozers and debris is removed
with front-loaders and dump trucks. Crews with chain-saws are
active for short periods in timbered areas. A ditch-digger with
backhoes follows; rock drills and blasting may be required in
hard-rock areas. The pipe laying activity requires heavy trucks,
a crane, dozers, and other equipment. Essentially these same types
of equipment will be required for construction of the STP. Typi-
cal sound level spectra for the above equipment items are given
in Table V-3 (BO-054).
TABLE V-3
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB AT A DISTAHCE OF 50 FEET
FROM VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Frequency (Hz)
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA
Dozer (Soil 270 hp)
75
73
80
77
75
72
65
61
77
Dump Truck
73
78
80
75
67
65
58
50
72
Back—Hoe/Front
73
73
73
73
73
68
62
58
72
Loader
Rock Drill
86
94
91
90
93
93
91
89
98
Crane
83
91
88
87
83
77
71
65
86
Concrete Mixer
70
70
70
70
70
63
57
51
72
v-li
-------
Assuming that the construction activity occurs from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. and that ambient sound levels are 50 dBA from 5:00 p.m.
to 11:00 p.m. and 45 dBA until 8:00 a.m., the values of Ldfl in
Table V-4 were computed as a function of distance for each type
of equipment
TABLE V-4
IN dB AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM VARIOUS
TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Distance from Source (Feet)
250 500 750 1000 2000
Dozer
60
56
54
——
——
Dump Truck
56
Back Hoe
59
55
Rock Drill
81
75
73
70
62
Crane
70
63
60
58
——
Concrete Mixer
57
——
——
Referring to the criteria of Figure V-2 and Ldn 55 dB
as the threshold value for creating annoyance, it is seen that
operation of certain equipment items will be a source of concern
at certain distances. These are summarized in Table V-5.
TABLE V-S
DISTANCES FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT WHICH
ANNOYANCE OCCURS DUE TO SOUND LEVEL
Equipment Item Distance (ft)
Dozer 100
Dump Truck 100
Back Hoe 500
Rock Drill >2,000
Crane 2,000
Concrete Mixer 500
V-12
-------
The actual sound levels depend upon equipment duty cycle and the
number and mixture of types that are operating simultaneously.
In general, however, mild adverse reaction may be expected during
development of the ditch at a distance of up to about 700 feet
due to noise caused by dozers, backhoes, and trucks. Laying the
sewer pipe will cause a more severe impact, since noise from
crane operations will dominate the noise field up to 2,000 feet.
Where blasting is required, the rock drill operation will be a
major noise source causing extreme annoyance up to distances of
about 2,000 feet.
Without the presence of human receptors of noise, en-
vironmental impact of noise upon human activity will not exist.
Construction of portions of sewer mains will take place on the
fringes of populated areas. Many more people will be exposed to
this construction noise than construction and operation noise at
STP’s. Construction noise can be better tolerated by human in-
habitants than long-term noise because of its transient nature.
This observation does not preclude the possibility of generating
considerable adverse reaction, particularly with the higher noise
offenders.
The length of time that such noise intrusion will occur
is highly variable, depending upon soil conditions, accessibility,
weather, and other factors. Assuming that approximately 3,000
feet of interceptor can be completed in a typical one-month period,
the length of time a given group of residents will be affected can
be estimated directly. As discussed previously, noise intrusion
can be expected to cause adverse human reaction at distances typ-
ically up to about 1,000 feet from the center of construction
activity. At a completion rate of 3,000 feet per month, such in-
habitants could expect noise to be in excess of limiting threshold
levels for a total time of two weeks to one month.
V-l3
-------
Construction of the South Buffalo treatment plant will
require up to about 2½ years. Since there are no residents with-
in 2,000 feet of the site, actual on-site construction is not ex-
pected to create an area of environmental concern. Additional
noise generated by construction vehicle traffic entering and leav-
ing the site area will increase levels along Huff me Mill Road,
but this activity will occur during normal working hours and is
not expected to be a source of annoyance. Noise from blasting
operations at the site will generate infrequent short pulses of
noise. These operations will not be of sufficient intensity to
radiate airborne noise to be heard in inhabited areas, although
a seismic pressure wave may be detectable along Huffine Mill Road.
The acoustical seismic energy of these pulses should be sufficiently
abated in a distance of 2,000 feet to be hardly noticeable.
Construction associated with upgrading North Buffalo
plant will require basically the same types of equipment required
in the construction of a new plant. For this location, approxi-
mately 42 people live within 1,000 feet and 716 people within
2,000 feet of the construction activity. As shown in Table V-4,
except for rock drilling operations, only the crane radiates noise
levels that will exceed the 55 dB threshold criterion. Little or
no blasting is required and consequently, a rock drill will prob-
ably not be needed at the site.
Occasional encroachment of site-generated noise may be
noticeable during the upgrading period within 1,000 feet of the
construction activity, but the level of activity is not nearly
as intense or continuous as development of a “grass-roots” plant
such as the one on South Buffalo Creek. Based upon the previously
discussed criteria and noise level predictions, no appreciable
adverse noise impacts are expected from the upgrading of the
North Buffalo plant.
V.- 14
-------
The impact of noise from construction upon wildlife is
not considered serious. Inhabitants of a particular area will
likely vacate it during construction more due to the activity
than because of the increased noise. Birds and other animals are
expected to return to the affected habitat after the activity
ceases. Noise within 1,000 feet of STP’s could affect birds and
those other animals that rely upon auditory signals to find mates,
stake out territories, recognize young, detect and locate prey,
and evade predators. However, experience indicates that the type
of animals in the area adapt quite readily to noise of the levels
indicated. Therefore, the effect of construction noise on wildlife
is not considered to be an appreciable problem.
Noise caused by operation of the treatment plants will
be dominated by equipment associated with the diffusion aeration
system. This includes the large electric motors, control valves,
high pressure piping, and discharge of air into aeration basins.
Some water movement, splashing and bubbling, will be present but
will not be of sufficient intensity to be noticeable over a few
hundred feet from the source.
In an acoustically untreated condition (no noise control
features) the aeration system will generate sound pressure levels
at a distance of 50 feet with the approximate spectrum shown in
Table V-6.
TABLE V-6
SPECTRUM OF SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FROM DIFFUSED AERATION SYSTEM
Sound Pressure
Frequency Levels at 50 ft
(Hz) (dB)
Sound Pressure
Frequency Levels at 50 ft
(Hz) (dB)
63 64
125 59
250 63
500 67
1000 74
2000 84
S 4000 76
8000 69
dBA 86
V.- 15
-------
Assuming that these sound pressure levels are constant for both
daytime and nighttime periods, Ldfl was computed as a function of
distance from the center of each plant as shown in Table V-7.
TABLE V-7
L AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
—dn
Distance (ft ) ( dB )
250 75
500 70
750 64
1000 62
2000 53
Again, no adverse reaction is expected from noise asso-
ciated with operation of the South Buffalo plant because there
are no inhabitants within 2,000 feet and radiated sound level is
well below 55 dB at distances greater than 2,000 feet. For the
North Buffalo plant, some people may suffer a slight degree of
annoyance and initiate complaints about the noise (see Figure V-2).
It is expected that those living to the north of the plant may be
subjected to interference of outdoor activity especially during
the late evening hours. People living to the south and east of
the plant will probably not notice the operational noise primarily
because of the natural buffer of vegetation and topography.
d. Geology
The bedrock geology of the area around the proposed new
treatment plant site has been mapped as biotite grariodiorite (RA-
R-406). However, several local outcrops at the site indicate the
site is underlain in part by a dark-colored, more basic igneous
or metaigneous rock than grariodiorite. A coring program for a
potential quarry at the site showed that this rock, which is very
V.-16
-------
hard, resistant, and tough, occurs in erratic patches in the area
(BU-264). Where it occurs, the soil is thin, and blasting will
likely be required for excavation for the treatment plant site.
Elsewhere, the more typical granodiorite is overlain by an 8 to
20 foot thick mantle of soil and weathered rock (BU-264) which will
not require blasting. Blasting will be the major adverse impact
associated with the geology of the site. No other adverse geo-
logic impacts are anticipated.
The topography of the proposed new plant site is flat
to gently rolling in the uplands portion and slightly more rugged
near South Buffalo Creek and its tributaries. The slopes are
flat to very gentle in the uplands and gentle to moderate near
the streams. No adverse environmental impact resulting from
steep slopes is anticipated. No alteration of the drainage pat-
terns in the area is expected from the relatively small construc-
tion site. However, the two small ponds that are impounded on
the site may be intentionally destroyed during construction or
they may be inadvertently silted in by sediment from the construc-
tion site. These impacts are discussed in more detail in the
aquatic biology impacts section.
No adverse impact on geology or topography is expected
from the expansion of the North Buffalo treatment plant. This
expansion will be confined to the boundaries of the existing plant
site, so no significant increase in adverse impact is anticipated.
The pipeline that will transport the raw sewage to the
new site from the existing South Buffalo treatment plant will
likely require blasting in some segments. Bedrock outcrops were
observed at two locations in the floodplain near the creek which
indicates that the creekbed is close to bedrock at least in some
sections of the creek. Blasting will be necessary in these sec-
tions, but the length of stream where blasting will be required
V-17
-------
is not expected to exceed 107 of the total stream length. Very
little adverse impact on the geology and geomorphology of the stream
is anticipated because the natural state of the stream has already
been extensively disturbed by a previous channelization project
that extends downstream almost to the proposed site. Some dis-
turbance may occur in the length of stream (1000 to 1500 feet)
that has not been channelized, but these impacts are expected to
be minimal.
The most important secondary geologic impacts of the
proposed project are related to the urban growth that will occur
in the Greensboro area. However, the geologic substrate in the
area is generally well-suited to urbanization, so these impacts
should be minimal. Blasting of hard bedrock will be required in
some areas, but will be highly localized (affecting areas of less
than a few hundred acres) and of short duration (generally less
than a month for large projects). Steep slopes (greater than 25%)
are rare (less than 1% of the area) and should not present problems
for urban growth.
e. Soils
The soil at the new treatment plant location has been
mapped as fine sandy loam (US-562). This soil is a typical well-
drained soil of the Piedmont uplands. The soil thickness ranges
from 20 to 38 inches, and the depth to hard rock is generally from
4 feet to more than 10 feet. At the site, however, the soil is
apparently thinner than normal in some places because of more re-
sistant bedrock parent material (see Geology section). The soil
depth in these areas probably averages less than three feet. Bed-
rock crops out in places at the site, and the soil thickness is
zero in those areas. The subsoil (B horizon) in most of the site
area has low permeability and high shrink-swell potential. The
soil eroidi bility K factor (an empirical measure of the erodibility
V-lB
-------
of soil ranging from 0.02, meaning nonerodible, to 0.69, very high
erosion potential; most soils fall between 0.2 and 0.5) is about
0.40 which indicates a moderately high susceptibility to erosion.
The chief impacts related to soils will likely be asso—
ciated with the new sewage treatment plant. As noted in the geol-
ogy section, the thin soils and shallow depth to bedrock in some
parts of the site will mean that blasting will probably be required.
The high shrink-swell subsoil could cause structural stress prob—
lems for plant facilities that are not emplaced in bedrock. The
moderately high K factor indicates that erosion is a potential
problem when the site is devegetated during construction operations.
The sediment derived from this erosion is not expected to contri-
bute to water quality problems (increased turbidity) of South Buf-
falo Creek. The quantity of sediment generated will be small, and
runoff from the site will flow over a vegetative buffer consisting
of about 500 feet of relatively flat, grassy land. Most of the
sediment will be removed from suspension before the runoff reaches
the creek and will be added to the soil downslope of the site.
The treatment plant itself will remove approximately 40 acres of
potentially moderately productive soil from future crop produc-
tiveness. The present use of this soil is limited to slightly
improved pastureland, however. Inasmuch as sludge will be dis-
posed of by centrifugation and incineration Instead of by the
use of sludge drying beds, the suitability of the soils for dry-
ing beds is not important. Should drying beds have to be used
jr the future, the impermeable subsoil should make the soils
suitable for this, provided excavation for the beds does not ex-
tend below the subsoils.
No adverse soils impacts are expected as a result of
the upgrading of the North Buffalo treatment plant because the
upgrading will be limited to the existing plant boundaries. A
small amount of additional sediment may be derived from erosion
-------
of the soils at the construction site, but this impact is expected
to be minimal.
The most important secondary impact of the proposed pro-
ject on the soils will be the removal of 15 to 20 square miles of
soil from potential productivity. 1 However, much of the soil in
the urban periphery where most of the urbanization will occur is
currently idle and nonproductive, so the actual loss of crop pro-
ductivity will not be significant. Also, the urban growth would
likely occur even without the proposed project. The character of
the growth would be different in that the urban density would be
less because septic tanks will be used. The total soil loss from
productivity would be greater in this case (up to 45 square miles 2 )
than it will be with the proposed project.
f. Water
Water-related impacts are addressed in the broad cate-
gories of surface water and ground water, and within these cate-
gories according to specific hydrologic aspects. In order to pro-
vide a “feel” for the total impact of the proposed action, primary
and secondary effects within a hydrologic area of concern are con-
sidered together, where possible.
(1) Surface Water
While related, both streamfiow and stream water quality
will be directly affected in various specific ways as a result of
the proposed action. In addition, secondary effects will also
be imposed on reservoir quality. Impacts to these three aspects
of the surface water regime in the Greensboro area are discussed
under separate subsections in this part of the EIS.
1 Assumes a reasonable mix of single-family and multiple-family
residences projected for the year 2000 (see Table 11-31).
2 Assumes a density of one 3-member family dwelling per acre.
V-20
-------
(a) Streamfiow
The streams draining the study area are naturally small,
relative to the proposed wastewater discharges (see Section II.A.
l.g. (2)). Consequently, perhaps the largest direct hydraulic
impact of the proposed action will be the increased augmentation
of the base flows of North and South Buffalo Creeks, especially
in the upper reaches of the receiving streams below the outfalls.
The significance of this effect is small because (1) both of these
streams presently receive effluent in amounts similar to that pro-
posed for discharge initially (10 MGD for North Buffalo and 9.6
MGD for South Buffalo), (2) the wastewater effluent will gradually
increase to the design amount over a twenty-year period (16 MGD
for North Buffalo and 20 MGD for South Buffalo), and (3) only
minor channel erosion has resulted to date from increased flows,
in that the low flow channel has naturally adjusted readily to
the augmented flow downstream from the outfalls. The increase in
low flows through these stream reaches during the design period
therefore should not create large problems with respect to down-
stream channel erosion. Moreover, at more downstream points,
say below the Reedy Fork-Buffalo Creek confluence, the increased
assimilative capacity and increased instream value due to the
larger low flows will be a substantial benefit. Inspection and
hydraulic calculations of the effect of daily wastewater fluctu-
ation indicate that the water-level elevations in the receiving
creeks will not vary so appreciably for bank stability problems
to be pronounced.
The removal of the wastewater discharge at the existing
South Buffalo Creek plant to a point five miles downstream will,
of course, decrease the flow in that reach substantially during
dry-weather conditions. No significant hydraulic effects should
accrue because this reach is almost entirely channelized. How-
ever, during extreme low flows, all but about 0.7 MCD in this
V-21
-------
five-mile reach will be industrial wastewater. This condition
not only has significant implications for water quality, as dis-
cussed below, but this stream reach, which formerly contained
poorly-treated municipal effluent, could be a breeding ground for
vectors and other insects for the first few years of the existence
of the new South Buffalo plant. Mitigative measures for this im-
pact are discussed in Chapter VI.
Impacts to streamfiow associated with necessary construc-
tion activities in or near the creek are minor, temporary, and of no
identified consequence. Similarly the increased flooding potential
as a direct result of the wastewater discharge to either stream
is negligibly small; the design discharges for both the North
and South Buffalo Creek plants are approximately one percent of
the mean annual flood discharge (recurrence interval of 2.33
years) and much less in water-elevation increase for a flood
that could cause significant flooding.
Although little stream water is presently utilized
in the Greensboro area for irrigation, the additional flow in
these creeks during dry weather conditions could be utilized
for this purpose. However, without an extensive distribution
network this additional water is of use to only those few farms
located near the stream. In addition, the current 9.6 MGD flow
from the present South Buffalo Creek plant will not be available
for the 26,000 feet reach below the existing plant.
The most significant impact to streaxnflow rates in
the Greensboro area are secondary effects related to the con-
tinued development of the area’s watersheds. The major effects
of this increased urbanization include higher flood peaks;
more frequent flooding; and, if extensive, significant decreases
in the natural low flows of area streams. These effects have
already been noticed to some extent in the highly urbanized
V-22
-------
watersheds of North and South Buffalo Creeks where substantial
increases in impervious cover (i.e., parking lots, streets, roof-
tops, etc.) have occurred.
The volume of runoff and ground water recharge which
occurs during storm events is governed primarily by the infiltra-
tion characteristics of a watershed. As urbanization changes na-
tural land use patterns which directly affect this infiltration
rate, the percentages of rainfall going to runoff and infiltration
change accordingly. The best example of this is the response
of the watershed to changes in impervious cover. As less of the
watershed’s area becomes available for infiltration, a larger
percentage of the rainfall ends up as runoff (Figure V-3). De-
creases in the water available to recharge ground water aquifers
is often the result, thereby lowering the ground water table.
As most natural low flow of streams comes from ground water, this
lowering of the ground water table often results in a decrease in
the low flow of urban streams, thereby reducing the water avail-
able to assimilate the treated effluent and further degrading
water quality.
The magnitude of the increased peak flows resulting
from the impervious cover is also increased by smaller lag
times associated with channelization and storm sewers. Because
channelization and sewering both reduce the resistance to flow
that occur in natural streams (i.e., vegetation, channel rough-
ness, and channel meanders), the runoff occurs in a shorter
time, thereby causing an increase in the peak flow rate (see
Figure V-4).
An example of how basin lag time affects flood peaks
with respect to various recurrence interval storms is shown in
the following table for a small stream (drainage area = .55
square miles) in nearby Winston-Salem.
V-23
-------
KEY
EVAPO-
TRANSPIRATION
RUNOFF
SHALLOW
INF ILTRA 110 N
40%
25%
DEEP
INFILTRATION
I NATURAL
I GROUND
L COVER
20%
25%
21
21%
36-50%
PAVED
SURFACES
]
30%
11
15%
10% 5%
IGURE V-3 HYDROGRAPH CHANGES DUE TO INCREASING TH
OF IMPERMEABLE PAVED SURFACES - ROOFS, ETC.
IN A DEV’LOPED AREA (HO-3 10)
I
IMP E RV IOU S
CHANNELIZED STREAM
HAVING ASSOCIATED
SURFACE
FLOOD PEAK
(NATURAL BASIN)
TIME —
NATURAL CHANNELS
AND NATURAL BASIN
SURFACES
RUNOFF
- * ADDITIONAL INFILTRATION OF NATURAL BASIN
‘ i• INFILTRATION AFTER URBANIZATION
TIME
FIGURE V-4 TYPICAL HYDROGRAPHS
FOR URBAN AND NATURAL WATERSHEDS (PU-050)
V-24
-------
Degree of Development
(Percentage Impervious Cover)
None 25 50
Basin Lag Time (hours) 2.03 0.30 0.22
2-Year Flood Peak Discharge (cfs) 85 269 323
25-Year Flood Peak Discharge (cfs) 380 852 970
100-Year Flood Peak Discharge (cfs) 654 1230 1370
Source: PU-050
As seen from this table, when 50 percent of the drain-
age area is impervious, the discharge of the 100-year flood
jncreaseS more than 100 percent above that of a natural basin.
The cause of this increased flood peak is a nine-fold reduction
in the basin lag time.
The channelization of South Buffalo Creek is an attempt
to accommodate these higher flows from urban areas that exceed
the capacity of the natural stream. Channelization, beyond its
aesthetic degradation, has other adverse impacts, such as in-
creased erosion from higher velocities and increased flooding
downstream of the channelized reach. Other better (i.e., more
environmentally sound) methods exist to mitigate the hydraulic
effects of urbanization (Chapter VI), but they are less direct
and less implementable than channelization projects.
The more intensive urban development of the Greensboro
area promoted by the proposed action will generally translate
into more channelization-type and flood-prevention projects as an
indirect effect. Peak flows will continue to increase in both
magnitude and frequency on watersheds experiencing continued ur-
banization. The effects of this increased flooding are discussed
in the Land/Water Interface Section of this chapter while appro-
priate mitigating measures are identified in Chapter VI.
V-25
-------
(b) Stream Quality
The principal reason for implementing the proposed action
is to improve the wastewater treatment capability of the City of
Greensboro and consequently to enhance the water quality of the
area’s receiving streams. Such enhancement may be either direct
(e.g., reducing pollutant loads by better treatment) or indirect
(e.g., by providing a large buffer against non-point source pollu-
tion). The streams, while small, receive substantial and varied
pollutant inputs from industrial as well as municipal sources. The
exact nature and source of non-municipal discharges are currently
unknown; efforts are underway to institute monitoring programs for
identifying point-source dischargers and the effluent quality. The
chief pollutants subject to control at the municipal wastewater
treatment plants are oxygen-demanding material of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous origin, suspended solids, and pathogenic bacteriological
species. Not all of these are being adequately controlled currently
to protect instream quality (NO-ill). However, there is also con-
siderable evidence that other water quality parameters not subject
to control at the municipal plants may be ecologically as important
in these streams. These parameters include heavy metals, other
minor chemical species such as fluoride, and even color. These
constituents derive from industrial point sources and non-point
sources. The direct and indirect effects on the water quality of
area streams must be viewed in light of all these factors, as dic-
tated by the “water quality-limited” status of these streams. How-
ever, for purposes of organization, the various water quality aspects
are addressed separately in the following subsections on siltation,
dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, residual
chlorine, and indirect effects related to urbanization.
Si 1 tat ion
Construction activities for the North Buffalo plant im-
provements, the new South Buffalo plant, and especially the major
outfall sewers have potential for degrading water quality with
V-26
-------
suspended and bedload solids from erosion of disturbed material.
Only a small amount of construction will be required at the North
Buffalo site and all disturbance will be within the flood-protec-
tion berm. This should enable effective sediment control. The
South Buffalo plant, while situated on fairly erosive soils, has
adequate space and topography for effective sediment controls
(NO-139). A large vegetative buffer also exists to trap any sedi-
ment-laden runoff that should escape controls at the site. Any
siltation of South Buffalo Creek as a result of treatment plant
construction is consequently expected to be temporary, minor, and
of no consequence. However, the construction of the outfall sewer
from the existing South Buffalo plant downstream to the proposed
site has the potential for significantly increasing the sediment
loads to South Buffalo Creek. This outfall sewer will parallel
the creek for about five miles and cross six tributaries. The
ground cover on approximately 60 acres of land will be disturbed
and will demand rigid adherence to the erosion and sediment con-
trol plan required by the state (NO-139) to minimize the silta-
tion. Owing to the high velocities in the channelized reach,
this sediment is likely to be transported fairly rapidly to more
downstream areas where the hydraulic gradient is smaller. Buffalo
Creek and Reedy Fork below their confluence will be likely inde-
finite residence areas for this eroded material. It seems very
doubtful that such sedimentation could achieve any useful purpose
(e.g., increasing reaeration) and more likely that the sediment
would impose a threat to any aquatic biota through the reaches
affected.
Dissolved Oxygen
Maintenance of a satisfactorily high dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) content is critical to aquatic biota and also important in
maintaining a chemically oxidizing overall environment to prevent
formation of noxious, often malodorous compounds that are usually
V-27
-------
a result of anaerobic degradation. In wastewater treatment, dis-
solved oxygen resources in a receiving stream are protected by
removing oxygen-demanding material from the wastewaters and also
by charging the wastewaters with dissolved oxygen before discharge.
The North and South Buffalo Creek plants are currently discharging
ROD loads of 1460 pounds per day and 2800 pounds per day, respec-
tively. At the design discharge, which is nearly double the
existing hydraulic loading, the BOD loads to North and South Buf-
falo Creeks from these plants will be reduced to 800 pounds per
day and 1840 pounds per day, respectively. Qualitatively, then,
although more treated wastewater will be entering the streams from
the municipal treatment plants, less pollutants will be discharged
to the creek. Ultimately, this improved effluent will be reflec-
ted by better stream quality with respect to dissolved oxygen.
In order to predict what levels of dissolved oxygen will
actually exist in these streams under standard worst-case condi-
tions, several mathematical models were employed to simulate the
streams’ responses. Much more and better input information is
available for the North Buffalo than for the South Buffalo system, so
the level of sophistication and confidence in the results is higher
on North Buffalo. This modeling was accomplished by the State of
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management in the course
of allocating suitable waste loads for the assimilative capacity
of the receiving streams and independently appraised by an EPA
contractor. The influence of all discharges to a given receiving
stream must be considered because the superposition of waste loads
tends to be cumulative in its effect on stream quality, although
dilution by the wastewaters themselves can be an important modi-.
Lying factor. Details concerning the modeling can be found in
the Technical Reference Document (RA-R-406). Because the two re-
ceiving streams and their waste inputs were modeled in structurally
different ways, they are discussed separately.
V-28
-------
North Buffalo Creek, Buffalo Creek, and Reedy Fork were
considered as a principal hydrologic system. Primary wastewater
discharges to this system are Cone Mills, North Buffalo sewage
treatment plant, and the wastewater-dominated South Buffalo Creek.
The D.0. profile along this stream system after wastewater improve-
merits at the North Buffalo plant is shown in Figure V5. As shown,
a double “sag” is predicted, one below the North Buffalo plant
and one below South Buffalo Creek, but the D.0. never drops below
the stream water quality criterion of 5.0 mg/9 . It must be recog-
ized, however, that this predicted absence of contravention of
the stream standard depends in both sag areas upon other condi-
tions which currently do not exist. A major mill is assumed in
the model to meet its effluent limitations, but achievement of
this mandate has yet to take place (enforcement of water quality
standards may be necessary to ensure compliance with this mandate).
In addition, the waste load input by South Buffalo Creek assumes a
substantially improved condition over that which now exists and pos-
sibly over that which may exist even after improvements to the
municipal system in that basin (see discussion below). It must
also be pointed out that the modeling does not include the oxygen-
demanding materials from distributed or non-point sources which
may be periodically substantial in a highly urbanized basin such
as North Buffalo Creek. Generally then, the dissolved oxygen
resources in North Buffalo Creek and its downstream waters at
least as far as the Reedy Fork-Buffalo River confluence will be
only marginally adequate to support fish and wildlife and other
uses of this stream, even after the proposed action. In consid-
eration of other water quality constituents that may act syner-
gistically with this stress, the water quality in this hydrologic
system is likely to remain in a poor state during some flow con-
ditions for an indefinite period. It appears to be technologically
(or at least economically) unfeasible now to treat the municipal
wastewaters to a level sufficiently high to avoid this conclusion.
it should be realized, though, that the high level of treatment
V-29
-------
UJco
z-J
O:
20
-J
i(
La - -
L I.
w
m
:tWs_
1—
W
O
-J
0
U)
a)
•0
D.O. .5 MG/L
-------
at the municipal plant affords longer time periods when the water
quality in the creeks will be suitable for its intended uses.
The South Buffalo Creek water quality has been addressed
in a less sophisticated fashion, owing to an apparent lack of ade-
quate information on industrial discharges and their effect on the
stream quality. With the proposed South Buffalo Creek plant site,
the effects of these industrial discharges have been assumed to
be negligible at this downstream location. This assumption is not
currently realistic, but there is reason to consider its applica-
bility after available control technologies or water/wastewater
recycling are applied to the industrial point sources. The D.O.
profile along South Buffalo Creek below the outfall of the pro-
posed new plant, shown in Figure V-6, suggests that under these
conditions the stream D.O. criterion can be met. However, both
the effects of inadequately treated upstream discharges, trans-
mitted rapidly to the proposed new plant in the channelized por-
tion of the creek, and the effects of non-point sources as urbani-
zation of the basin proceeds are almost certain not only to cause
a continuation of the poor quality now existing in South Buffalo
Creek, but also to extend the area stressed in a more downstream
direction. The severity of the stress should be less than with
the existing plant location, which will likely prevent anoxic con-
ditions from developing over large reaches of the stream during
critical periods. Again, the water quality conditions that will
be experienced in the South Buffalo basin are principally a func-
tion of the small size of these headwater streams which receive
substantial point source and non-point pollutant loads. Under
projected conditions, little benefit could be derived from increas-
ing the level of treatment at the municipal plant even if cost
was a minor consideration.
V-31
-------
0
-J
U-
U i
O
-J
0
0 )
a
D.O. 5 MG/I
-------
It should be recognized that the proposed action will
remove the wastewater currently discharged at the existing plant
for about five miles downstream. Under low flow conditions, little
dilution and less reaeration will be available to counter oxygen
demand of the industrial wastes discharged upstream. Consequently,
the removal of this municipal waste source is not tantamount to
improved stream quality in that reach.
The map in Figure V-7 shows values of dissolved oxygen
in area streams at selected locations. These D.O. values would
be near-minima that could be reached during very low flows and
that result from point source discharges after the proposed action
is implemented. There appears to be little question that the assim-
ilative capacity of these streams is being approached and that
alternate receiving streams should be considered in the future.
Implementation of the proposed action will likely most signifi-
cantly improve the water quality in the lower reaches of Buffalo
Creek and below the confluence with Reedy Fork and maintain water
quality in more downstream areas.
Fecal Coliforms
The wastewater treatment plants and other components
of the proposed action are to be designated Class V reliability
systems. This rating assures that design features, operational
procedures, and materials will be provided to offer a high degree
of protection against major plant malfunctions. Nevertheless,
remote pumping station bypassing, treatment plant malfunctions,
or operator error could result in discharge of untreated or very
poorly treated sewage. Such discharges are possible and have
occured in similar plants in the past. In this extremely unlikely
event, public health would be the chief concern. A public health
‘Class I - The highest level of sophistication available for in-
suring reliable waste treatment within the present state of the
art of wastewater engineering technology (EN-610).
V-33
-------
— _______ ROCKNGHAM CO . — _______ ______ ______ ______ ______
FIGURE V-7
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN CONTENT
OF STREAMS BELOW
PROPOSED OUTFALL
OUTFALL
-
i-i 0.0. iN STREAM
2
4__ 5
SCALE IN MILES
S
I
I
-------
hazard to water-contact recreation would exist for no more than
about 44 miles downstream of any potential discharge point based
on uncalibrated modeling of the coliform die-off under worst-case
conditions. No Class “B” or higher water exists within 44 miles
downstream of either treatment plant. Pumping stations, and es-
pecially any pumping station in the Horsepen Creek basin, appear
to be a larger possible hazard although the magnitude or signifi-
cance of the effects can range from very small to extensive. Po-
tential actions to mitigate this hazard are discussed in Chapter V I.
An important water quality aspect of the proposed action
which should improve normal and low flow bacteriological quality
is the sewering of areas within the South Buffalo basin that cur-
rently generate local stream pollution by poorly sited, operating,
or maintained septic tanks. Extremely high fecal coliform concen-
trations in South Buffalo Creek that have occurred in the past
should be reduced, although re-occurrence of this pollution prob-
lem can be expected in areas peripheral to the sewered area with-
out mitigative measures. Moreover, storm runoff will continue to
contribute large numbers of coliform bacteria to all area creeks.
Nutrients
Neither treatment plant will undertake nutrient removal,
and the nitrification step in the unit processes employed essen-
tially guarantees that the nitrogen will be in a generally available
form as nitrate. Despite the relatively high concentrations of
these nutrients in the wastewater effluent and even in the receiv-
ing stream, no adverse effects on water quality are associated
with the nutrients because, in these streams, these nutrients (and
carbon) are almost certainly not limiting to biological growth.
‘Class B - Waters suitable for water-contact recreation such as
swimming, wading, or skiing.
V-35
-------
Turbidity, caused by intense color and suspended sediment, is
probably much more important in controlling growth, and in the
immediate area, the presence of industrially generated toxic sub-
stances, such as ammonia, fluoride, and certain heavy metals, have
inhibited better trophic conditions in the past. It is not known
whether and the extent to which many of these limiting or inhibit—
ing factors have been controlled in the past few years. In any
event, however, nutrients are probably not a control on water
quality in these small, unimpounded receiving streams.
Residual Chlorine
Efficient disinfection of municipal wastewater requires
sufficient chlorine to meet the complete chlorine demand plus an
additional quantity, termed residual chlorine, to provide bacter-
ial disinfection. Under commonly encountered operating practices
where economics generally dictate, chlorine will be present in
toxic amounts for only a short period of time after contact with
organic material and other reducing substances in the effluent.
Residual chlorine concentrations in the treated effluent should
be negligible. Disinfection usually is accomplished before the
outfall and within the mixing zone. Any residua.l chlorine will
be diluted and normally disappear within a few tens of feet of
the outfall in the receiving stream. Chlorine is not expected
to be a significant ecological burden on any of the receiving
streams. The short residence time and the relatively low concen-
tration of the chlorine relative to drinking water treatment
should alleviate most concern for the inadvertent formation of
chlorinated hydrocarbons, some of which are carcinogenic. How-
ever, the probable presence of a wide variety of organic compounds
of industrial origin in both the municipal wastewater and the re-
ceiving waters of North and South Buffalo Creeks is incentive to
maintain a monitoring program for trace organics in the effluent.
No plans for such monitoring are known to have been formulated.
V-36
-------
Secondary Effects
The proposed action will encourage more intensive urban
land use and promote more extensive growth in the Greensboro area
than would exist without the project. This change will directly
affect stream water quality because drainage from urban areas typ-
ically is of poor quality with substantial, unacceptably high
amounts of suspended solids, pathogens, oil and grease, oxygen-
demanding material, nutrients, and toxic substances (pesticides,
herbicides, and heavy metals). This quality generally worsens, then
improves with time during a storm event, and the total mass and con-
centration of a given pollutant that reaches a stream depends on a
multiplicity of factors. Other factors being equal, however, gen-
erally non-point source pollutant loadings may be compared at a
first approximation level on an areal basis. During a given time
interval, the increase in pollutant loadings (not necessarily con-
centrations) are approximately proportional to the increase in
urbanized areas of the various basins. Very large percent increases
in urbanized area may generally be assumed to be accompanied by
increased concentrations of the pollutants as well, although there
are many complicating factors. Therefore, the streams whose water
quality is most likely to be degraded relative to existing condi-
tions are those basins and subbasins in the transition areas. This
increase in area adversely affected by urban runoff is an atten-
dent impact of urban growth if such growth is not properly planned
and controlled. The marginal condition of water quality created
by the point-source discharges in the study area underscores the
potential important role urban runoff can play in water quality
degradation of streams in the Greensboro area and in the mainte-
nance of some streams in a degraded state despite improvements to
point sources.
The EPA and State of North Carolina are sponsoring an
ongoing study to quantify more accurately the potential secondary
V-37
-------
water quality effects of typical urbanization characteristic of
the Greensboro area. Results of this study, however, are not
available to this Draft EIS. The program is explained in more
detail in the following subsection on reservoir quality.
Reservoir Quality
The extension of sewer service into the Horsepen Creek
watershed has the potential to encourage development and therefore
degrade the quality of runoff into the Greensboro water supply
(i.e., Lake Brandt). However, without the sewer interceptor, de-
velopment is projected to occur in the Horsepen Creek watershed
by use of septic tanks. Septic tank failures and malfunctions
pose a public health hazard by increasing the chance of contamin-
ation of the water supply with pathogenic organisms while urban
runoff contributes unacceptable levels of other deleterious sub-
stances as discussed under stream quality. Therefore, management
of the Horsepen Creek watershed to minimize these pollutant load-
ings is a necessity to insure protection of the Greensboro water
supply. Development of this management plan should be based on
both a water quality data base for the area streams and lakes and
on sound judgement where appropriate. For this reason, a water
quality monitoring program has been initiated and will be used in
the environmental assessment of proposed development scenarios in
the Horsepen Creek Basin. This program is currently in progress
and therefore the results cannot be included in this Draft EIS.
However, the findings of the study and a proposed action with pos-
sible mitigating measures for unavoidable impacts will be included
in a supplement to the Draft and in the Final EIS. The following
describes the ongoing monitoring program.
Three area watersheds were selected for extensive moni-
toring during both low flow and storm runoff. Transient hydraulic
response and major, minor, and trace inorganic species are being
V-38
-------
studied in all three basins. The first of these watersheds, Horse-
pen Creek, is being sampled during high and low flows at Fleming
Road to define the existing pollutant loads to Lake Brandt. The
goal of the monitoring program is to project changes in this cur-
rent loading associated with the two development scenarios (i.e.
septic tanks or sewered). In addition to Horsepen Creek, two addi-
tional watersheds are being monitored. To define the quality of
water associated with a sewered watershed, North Buffalo Creek is
being sampled near the headwaters at Friendly Road. This basin
is now predominantly single-family residential and is served by
the Greensboro sanitary sewer system. The basin contains several
stormwater detention ponds and a significant amount of open space.
Two low flow periods and two storm runoff events will be sampled
at this site. The data collected at this site will be used to
estimate pollutant concentrations and total mass loads from a
typical Greensboro residential watershed.
To define water quality changes associated with septic
tank development, Cedarwood subdivision, located south of Horse-
pen Creek on High Point Lake, is also being sampled twice during
low flow periods. The subdivision is developed with septic tanks
in a soil type (Enon series) that is similar in suitability for
septic tanks to soils in the Horsepen Creek Basin and has similar
land use to that which potentially could exist in Horsepen Creek
Basin.
In addition to the stream sampling, Lake Brandt is also
being sampled at three stations following storm events sampled on
Horsepen Creek. Additionally, Lake Brandt will be sampled during
mid-summer to define the effects of stratification and a nutrient
mass balance. This information will provide data on the overall
trophic state of Lake Brandt and input data for an areal loading
model to predict lake performance under the loadings of the var-
ious urbanization scenarios. The model to be used is the Larsen-
V-39
-------
Mercier model that accounts for nutrient retention on lake sedi-
ments as well as nutrient uptake by biota in the inflow-outflow
balance. Phosphorus will be the nutrient of principal interest.
(2) Ground Water
The ground-water conditions at the proposed new treat-
ment plant site are typical of the Piedmont environment in the
Greensboro region. Ground water occurs in the fractures of the
hard metamorphic and igneous bedrock. Recharge to the aquifer
occurs in the uplands, and ground water is discharged into the
streambed and alluvium of South Buffalo Creek.
The greatest potential ground-water impact is the pos-
sible water quality hazard posed by leakage from facilities at
the treatment plant site. This hazard is most significant for
those facilities that are emplaced below the soil zone. However,
any contaminated water that goes into the subsurface should be
at least partially renovated in the zone of aeration. Further-
more, any ground water that is contaminated would be restricted
to the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. Contaminated
ground-water flow would be from the site toward South Buffalo
Creek, so no water supply sources will be affected.
Another potential ground-water quality hazard is the
nearly five-mile-long raw sewage pipeline that will lead from
the existing South Buffalo treatment plant to the new treatment
plant site. However, as with all sewers and force mains in the
system, leakage and ground-water quality reduction should be mini-
mal if good, up-to-date engineering practices that will prevent
pipeline leakage are used in the pipeline construction. Also,
the alluvial aquifer is small and very little used, so no major
source of water supply is involved.
V-40
-------
The expansion of the North Buffalo treatment plant is
expected to have very little impact on ground-water systems. The
additional flow in North Buffalo Creek may raise ground-water
levels in the alluvial aquifer, but this impact is insignificant.
Potential leakage from the additional facilities may deteriorate
local ground-water quality, but this effect will be very local
and no water supply source will be affected.
The increased urbanization associated with the proposed
project will increase ground-water withdrawals by residences which
are not included in the Greensboro water supply system. The amount
of withdrawal is not expected to result in aquifer depletion, how-
ever, because the quantity withdrawn annually will not approach
the annual recharge to the aquifers. If as much as 307 of the in-
creased population of 90,000 were to rely on ground-water supplies,
the 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD) demand could be accommodated
by ground-water recharge in the area of urbanization. The total
quantity of ground water available in Guilford County is about
150 MGD (see Chapter II), so the quantity available in the area
of urbanization should exceed 2.7 MCD. Some recharge will be lost
because of “paving over” of part of the land during urbanization,
but water levels should not decline as a result. However, a por-
tion of baseflow to streams will be lost as a result, but this
loss will be insignificant compared to the existing flow from ar-
tificial discharges.
g. Land/Water Interface
Continued urbanization of previously undeveloped areas
within watersheds draining the Greensboro area will continue to
increase flood flows and correspondingly raise the floodplain
elevation of affected creeks. This increase in flooding can be
directly related to the level of development expressed as the
percent of impervious cover. The U.S. Geological Survey has
V-41
-------
developed regression equations based on impervious cover to pre-
diet the peak discharges of various streams for a given recurrence
interval (e.g., 100-year storm) (PU-050). Utilizing these equa-
tions., the lag time is determined for a given set of known water-
shed conditions such as stream slope, stream length, and percent
of impervious cover. Once the lag time is determined, the corres-
ponding peak discharge can be determined knowing the drainage area.
Assuming all other basin characteristics remain the same, a cor-
responding peak discharge can be determined for appropriate changes
in impervious cover. In order to relate the peak discharges ob-
tained in this manner to the corresponding floodstage, a stage-
discharge relationship is needed. This relationship has been es-
tablished at several sites on various streams throughout the Greens-
boro area at U.S. Geological Survey stream gages.
To illustrate the changes in flood elevations as a re-
suit of increases in impervious cover, the regression equations
were solved for various percentages of impervious cover where
North Buffalo Creek crosses Highway 2832. The results are shown
in Table V-8. Although the increases in flood elevations exper-
ienced at this site are not representative of all streams in the
Greensboro area, they do show how urbanization significantly in-
creases flood levels.
TA.BLE V-8
CHANGES IN FLOOD ELEVATIONS AS A RESULT OF
INCREASES IN IMPERVIOUS COVER
PERCENT 100-YEAR CHANGE IN
IMPERVIOUS PEAK FLOW FLOOD ELEVATION
COVER ( cfs) ABOVE 1% IMPERVIOUS (ft )
1 5,000 0
5 6,900 2.1
10 7,800 3.1
20 8,900 4.1
40 10,000 5.1
60 10,600 5,6
V-42
-------
These increased flood levels will expose land previously
not subject to flooding to high velocity waters, thus increasing
the erosion potential of previously unflooded areas. This increased
soil load will be carried downstream until the stream velocity slows
enough to deposit the additional sediment. Some previously unflood-
ed areas will experience this increased erosion while other previ-.
ously unflooded areas will experience the increase in sedimentation.
As these projected increases in flooding from urbanization will oc-
cur gradually with time, the impacts to the flood-prone areas are
expected to be gradual and mostly minor with respect to the natural
environment.
However, man-made developments bordering the existing
floodplain will need to take costly flood protection measures if
urbanization of watersheds continues. Measures to both minimize
the increases in flooding associated with urbanization and to pro-
tect existing developments in projected floodplains are identified
in Chapter VI.
2. Biological Components
a. General
The environmental effects of the proposed action on
terrestrial and aquatic biota in the Greensboro area must be
evaluated with regard to the existing condition of these comrnun-
ities. Short-term direct effects will stem from construction
at plant sites, pump stations, and along pipeline routes. Direct
effects of longer duration will be caused by operation of the
new facilities. Indirect effects will occur as a result of ur-
banization in newly sewered areas. It is assumed, however, that
this growth would occur with or without the proposed action.
V-43
-------
b. Land
Construction of facilities for upgrading the level of
treatment at the North Buffalo sewage treatment plant will occur
within existing plant boundaries. The grounds of the plant are
covered with coastal bermuda and mowed. Therefore, no signifi-
cant disturbance of natural plant communities by construction
will occur in this area. Some small rodents and snakes w iich pre-
sently inhabit the existing plant site will be destroyed during
construction. Birds and small mammals that utilize these grassy
areas for feeding will temporarily leave because of construction
noise and increases in human activity. These species, such as
starlings and cottontail rabbits, will return during and after
Construction.
The construction of a new sewage treatment plant at
the proposed site on South Buffalo Creek will remove about 40
acres of improved pastureland and mixed pine-hardwoods. The re-
moval of trees will not be significant because the proposed site
is essentially all pasture. Only a few large oak and maple trees
that stand near abandoned dwellings will be removed. The mono-
crop community of improved forage grass in the pastures at the
site is non-native. Therefore, its removal and replacement by
a monocrop community of coastal bermuda grass will have only minor,
temporary effects on existing plant communities.
Terrestrial wildlife species at the proposed site are
those common to improved pastures and abandoned buildings. Rice
rats, white-footed mice, meadowlarks and common ground snakes are
the types of animals that will be destroyed during construction
at the site. The small number of individuals removed will not
have a serious impact on local populations. Other species not
removed by construction will withdraw from the immediate construc-
tion area because of noise. Traffic on heavy equipment and truck
V-44
-------
access roads, blasting, engine noise, dust, and generally increased
levels of human activity during construction will cause wildlife
inhabiting upland mixed pine-hardwood habitats at the periphery
of the site to temporarily move further into this cover. Some
species, such as eastern fox squirrels and cottontail rabbits,
will habituate to these disturbances and return to the periphery
of the site before construction is completed. Others, like rac-
coons or oppossums, will forage in and around the site nocturnally.
Species more intolerant of human disturbance will return to the
vicinity of the site after construction is complete. Because of
the rural character of the area, most species utilizing available
habitats around the site are those accustomed to some level of
human disturbance. Therefore, the effects of noise from construc-
tion and operation of the new plant on resident species are ex-
pected to be slight and temporary.
The proposed construction of a 26,000-foot outfall sewer
down South Buffalo Creek from the existing South Buffalo sewage
treatment plant to the proposed new sewage treatment plant on
South Buffalo Creek will disturb about 60 acres of riparian biota
(assuming a 100-foot right-of-way). The loss of riparian wood-
lands along this route will be minimized because about 25,000
feet of this creek segment has been previously channelized. Along
the majority of this segment, the only ground cover within 20-30
feet of the streambank is low-growing grasses, herbs, and shrubs.
This same ground cover will revegetate the streambank after con-
struction is complete. Because the majority of the riparian ve-
getation along this stream segment is presently disturbed, no
lasting adverse effects on riparian vegetation are anticipated.
Wildlife which presently utilize the disturbed riparian
habitat along the proposed outfall route will temporarily with-
draw from the noise and general human disturbance which accompany
construction. Nesting sites or activities of some riparian birds
V-45
-------
and mammals will be destroyed or interrupted by construction,
especially if construction takes place during the spring. A few
individuals, such as leopard frogs, ribbon snakes or golden mice,
will be killed as a direct result of construction. Removal of
these animals will not have any lasting effect on area populations.
Because construction will proceed in a linear fashion down the
creek, only a relatively small area will be disturbed at any given
time. Those species which leave these areas because of construc-
tion disturbance will return after completion of the outfall and
revegetation of the creek banks.
Operation of the new plant on South Buffalo Creek will
not have any lasting effect on area wildlife. Plant noise, vehi-
cular traffic, and increased human activity will disturb resident
wildlife only temporarily. Most species will habituate to these
disturbances relatively quickly.
The indirect environmental effects of the proposed
action on terrestrial flora and fauna will stem from urbanization
in newly sewered, previously rural, areas. Fragmentation of
existing wildlife habitats will increase. Native vegetation will
be replaced with urban species and wildlife will withdraw from
the expanding city limits due to increased human disturbance and
loss of suitable habitat.
c. Water
The effects of construction at the existing North Buf-
falo sewage treatment plant and at the proposed new sewage treat-
ment plant site on aquatic biota will be comparatively minor.
Both streams presently afford poor habitat for aquatic life.
Therefore, temporary siltation and/or runoff associated with con-
struction will not adversely affect the aquatic environment down-
stream. Two small farm ponds at the new treatment plant site on
V-46
-------
South Buffalo Creek contain reproducing populations of largemouth
bass and sunfish. Siltation of both ponds is likely during con-
struction and will probably interfere with fish reproduction for
one or two seasons. The smaller of the two ponds will be destroyed
during construction. Loss of this fishery will have no impact on
local recreational fishing because public access is restricted. The
remaining larger pond might be used for public fishing when con-
struction is complete.
Construction of the 26,000-foot outfall sewer in, across,
and on the banks of South Buffalo Creek will further disturb a
segment of the creek that has been previously channelized. Aqua-
tic habitat quality in this segment is poor. Adverse effects
associated with construction, such as siltation or channel diver-
sion, will be temporary and will not significantly degrade exist-
ing conditions.
Operation of the upgraded facilities will result in the
discharge of a comparatively high quality effluent to both receiv-
ing streams. Dissolved oxygen levels downstream of both sewage
treatment plant discharges will not fall below 5 mg/i according
to design criteria. Total suspended solids concentrations will
also be reduced. These improvements in wastewater quality will
be reflected instream only if point source discharges upstream
of both sewage treatment plants are of higher quality than now.
Additionally, the long history of municipal and industrial pollu-
tion of North and South Buffalo Creeks makes improvement of aqua-
tic habitat quality unlikely for an indefinite period. Sewage
treatment plant upset or inefficiency during the winter, discharge
of industrial effluents upstream, and urban runoff will continue
to inhibit the growth of aquatic life. Neither stream will become
an important sport fishery as a result of implementing the pro-
posed action.
V-47
-------
Nitrogen and phosphorus loading of both streams will
continue because these elements will not be removed from the
treated effluent at either facility. Nitrogen will be removed
to some extent due to the use of advanced treatment. Algal blooms
or increases in undesirable rooted aquatic plants have not been
problematic in either stream in the past. High flow rates, tur-
bidity, and an unstable substrate will continue to inhibit plant/
algal growth during the design period.
Increases in flow which will occur downstream from both
plants during the design period will be similar to those observed
in both streams in the previous 20 years, and discharge increases
will occur gradually. Flows downstream of the confluence of the
two creeks will increase from a present average of 19.6 MGD to
36 MGD. The biota that remain in both streams have been subjected
to similar historical increases in flow as well as bottom scour-
ing associated with large flood flows. The banks of both streams
will continue to be gradually cut and the slumping now observed
in some stream segments will continue. Where the streams are not
now channelized, some trees will fall into the streams as the
banks erode. This erosion will cause some sedimentation and
turbidity similar to that presently observed.
Flow in the 26,000-foot segment of South Buffalo Creek
below the existing sewage treatment plant will be decreased by
about 10 MGD when the plant is closed. Average natural flow in
this segment is greater than 13 MGD 50 percent of the time. When
the 10 MGD of treated effluent is withdrawn, flow in this segment
will be chiefly composed of urban runoff and industrial effluent.
Aquatic habitat quality will be poor as a result; however, exist-
ing habitat quality is poor and the aquatic flora and fauna depau-
perate. Therefore, though water quantity and habitat quality will
be reduced in this segment, the change in the biota that remain
will be small.
V-48
-------
Urbanization in the watershed of both North and South
Buffalo Creeks will cause indirect project-related effects over
the next two decades. Increases in urban runoff will contribute
to maintenance of the present low quality of aquatic habitats ob-
served in both streams. During seasonal low flows, urban runoff
will have a more pronounced effect on aquatic habitat quality be-
cause of the low dilution capacity of receiving streams.
d. Sensitive Biological Areas
No rare/endangered terrestrial plant or animal species
or habitats critical for such species are currently known to occur
at either sewage treatment plant site or along the proposed pipe-
line route. All of these areas have been previously disturbed by
man’s agricultural or residential use. There are no tracts of
virgin woodland, nor are there s.pecific habitat types which will
be permanently removed. Aquatic biota in North and South Buffalo
Creeks are currently largely composed of pollution-tolerant species.
No rare/endangered species or quality habitats have been found in
either creek.
V-49
-------
C. Man-Made Environment
The proposed action will cause changes to occur in the
man-made environment at two levels. First, there will be direct
impacts which will be associated with (1) the work force required
for construction and operation of the proposed action and (2)
the effects on people living and working near the various compo-
nents. Second, the expanded sewage treatment capacity will affect
the EIS Study Area in an indirect manner as the area grows in
population. Each of the major factors to be considered in the
man-made environment will be addressed from these two perspectives
so that the consequences of the proposed action can be understood.
1. Demography and Economics
Demographic effects are those related to the population
of an area. The major problems which may arise, either in the
short-term or long—term, will manifest themselves in (1) change
in population size, (2) change in demographic characteristics
(age, sex, race, etc.), or (3) change in geographic distribution.
Economic effects are related to changes in the structure
of the economy and to changes in employment. The structure of an
economy can range from one which is extremely dependent on one
type of industry, such as textile manufacturing or educational
services, to one as diverse as the national economy. Changes in
total employment and unemployment reflect overall business activity.
a. Direct Impacts
The only component of the system which might cause a
movement of population is the new South Buffalo plant. The North
Buffalo plant will be upgraded within its existing boundary so
that none of the surrounding population will be displaced. The
V-50
-------
outfall from the old South Buffalo plant to the new site will be
a temporary inconvenience, but its presence will not require peo-
ple to move.
The new South Buffalo plant will be built on a vacant
farm. None of the land to be purchased as a buffer zone has occu-
pied housing units. Therefore, the new plant will not require
the relocation of population. In addition, the number of people
who may be aware of the plant’s existence is relatively small.
As Table V-9 shows, only 90 people, approximately, live within
3000 feet of the plant perimeter. All these people live more than
2000 feet from the proposed facility.
TABLE V- 9
INHABITANTS WITHIN RADIUS OF:
1,000’ 2000’ 3000’ Total
North Buffalo 42 716 1181 1949
Existing South Buffalo 43 878 2272 3192
New South Buffalo 0 0 90 90
The construction and operation of the proposed action
will not cause a significant growth in the population of the area.
An average of 30 people, with a maximum of 50 at any one time, will
be employed in the 2½-year construction period. This is a rela-
tively small number when it is considered that Guilford County
has nearly 7000 unemployed people.
The operation of the expanded system will probably re-
quire several additional employees in the Greensboro Public Works
Department. Currently, 24 people are employed at the North
Buffalo plant and 17 are employed at South Buffalo. The upgraded
North Buffalo plant will require an additional 16 employees.
V-51
-------
The people now operating South Buffalo will probably be transferred
to the new South Buffalo facility. Twenty-eight additional people
will be required to operate the new plant. Again, this is a very
small number and the workers are probably available from the exist-
ing labor supply.
Direct economic effects will result from (1) the increase
in purchasing by the construction and operation work force, (2)
the sale of materials for the construction and operation, and (3)
the sale of land for the South Buffalo site. In the first case,
the wages and salaries for the construction will amount to approx-
imately $1,900,000, assuming $15,000 per worker. If forty-four
new employees are added to the Public Works Department staff as
a result of the proposed action, approximately $528,000 in wages
and benefits, assuming $12,000 per worker per year, will be added
to the area payroll.
Second, the cost of materials will be approximately $20
million. Much of the material will be purchased locally. Finally,
the City of Greensboro will purchase approximately 400 acres for
the new South Buffalo plant.’ Property values near the South Buf-
falo site may decline somewhat in the short term. However, prox-
imity to Greensboro and eventual access to sewage treatment should
keep the values from falling precipitously. Values may even in-
crease because of the increased potential for industrial and resi-
dential development.
Of the final $33.3 million for the proposed action,
North Carolina and EPA funds will provide 87.5%. Hence, the EIS
Study Area will be getting $29.1 million of economic activity for
‘Present principal landowners are: Ciba-Geigy Corp; Tabernacle
Farm Co; W. V. Maness; A. L. Megland; I. T. Cohen; Robert R. Fryar;
Vannie Fryar; George A. Denny; Carl D. Hamilton; Northeast Baptist
Church
V-.52
-------
$4.2 million (l2.57 ). Obviously, this will have a beneficial
effect on the area since much of the money will be spent locally.
Indirect beneficial effects will accrue as the money circulates.
b. Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are associated with the growth which
will occur following the expansion of sewage treatment capacity.
They can be more pronounced in the long run than the direct ef-
fects. Chapter It presented the projected population and land
use patterns assuming that Sewage treatment would be universally
available. The proposed facilities should not alter these pro-
jections. Increases in the population in the North and South
Buffalo basins east of Greensboro are anticipated. However, ex-
traordinary growth to the east of the proposed South Buffalo facil-
ity is not expected. Therefore, that location will accommodate
projected growth but is not expected to extend growth patterns
unduly or encourage dispersal into outlying areas. The ques-
tion of future residential growth will be further addressed in
the Land Use section.
Those areas downstream (east) of the North Buffalo plant
which are expected to grow (transition areas ii Figure 11-21) will
be served by a dual gravity/force main system with sewage pumped
back to the plant. Growth in the Alaniance Creek basin portion
of the EIS Study Area will be similarly served. Hence, the pro-
posed action serves the projected population growth of the area
as delineated in Chapter II. Also, it removes some of the pres-
sure for development north and northwest of Greensboro by opening
available vacant land east of the city limits.
If the system were not expanded, the study area’s growth
would be limited to approximately 45,000 people on the city’s facil-
ities by 2000 according to data presented in Chapter III. The
V-53
-------
projected growth is approximatelY 90,000 people. Therefore, ap-
proximately 45,000 people would have to be dependent upon septic
tanks or package plants. Soil conditions severely limit develop-
ment on septic tanks. Furthermore, package plants are relatively
expensive, require extensive planning, and do not dispose of sludge
as a part of their operation. In conclusion, growth with reliance
upon Greensboro’s expanded sewage treatment System is the most
attractive alternative for most areas.
If the proposed action allows the area to grow to its
projected population, there is going to have to be concomitant
growth in the economy of the area to employ the growth increment.
Therefore, an indirect effect will be industrial and commercial
growth. With the proposed action, this growth can be accommodated
within Greensboro on the city’s sewage treatment system.
2. Land Use
a. Direct Effects
Land use at the North Buffalo plant will not change
since the upgrading will be accomplished within existing boun-
daries. Land use along South Buffalo Creek from the existing
plant to the new site will be affected temporarily during the
construction of the outfall. However, no permanent change will
result and the period of construction at any one site (farm,
residential, etc.) will be short (assuming construction at a rate
of 3000 feet per month).
The 400 acres Greensboro willbuy for the new South
Buffalo plant is currently either forested, in pasture, or in
row crops. Row crops represent a very small percent of the total
acreage (50 acres at most). The 75-acre plot on which the proposed
plant is to be located is pastureland, supporting approximately
V-54
-------
20 cattle. This land has very thin soil and is probably not eco-
nomically suitable for plow agriculture.
The portion of the 400 acres to be purchased as a buf-
fer zone is predominantly timberland and will remain as such to
reinforce the buffer. Hence, very little land of high economic
value will be lost. With respect to future agricultural produc-
tivity, the entire 400 acres has limited potential.
Within 3000 feet of the proposed South Buffalo site
there are approximately 30 residential units, 1 church, and 1
grocery. None of these land uses will change in the proposed
action.
As a consequence of the proposed action, the existing
South Buffalo plant will cease operation. This land will remain
as city property, perhaps to be utilized as a recreational facil-
ity. In any event, use of that land as “industrial” (the classi-
fication for sewage treatment plants) will cease. As a direct
result of that action, land values in that neighborhood may in-
crease since it will tend to be a more pleasant area in which to
live.
b. Indirect Effects
Indirect impacts on land use consider (1) the study
area’s ultimate development potential, (2) potential density in-
tensification, (3) changes in land use planning and policies, and
(4) changes in land ownership patterns.
Anticipated growth patterns in the year 2000 were pre-
sented in Chapter II. These growth areas are not expected to
be altered with the proposed action. However, the proposed action
does provide a more positive prospect of development occurring east
v-55
-------
of the present city limits. The new treatment facility will eas-
ily provide the South Buffalo (east) subbasin with sewer service.
Lift stations and outfall lines provided in the proposed action
will also service North Buffalo (east) and Alamance. Urban den-
sities may be expected in North Buffalo (east), South Buffalo
(east), and Alamance in the year 2000 as presented in Chapter II.
The action will relieve some of the pressure for development in
the north and northwest.
A possibility for a “leapfrogging” pattern of development
does exist in eastern Guilford County with the proposed placement
of the South Buffalo plant. Leapfrogging means that development
will occur several miles from Greensboro with undeveloped land in
between. However, it would be very difficult to prove that this is
going to happen because it will depend largely upon decisions made
in the private sector by developers and financial institutions, as
well as local county and city zoning decisions.
“Leapfrogging” is not expected to happen on an appreciable
scale for three major reasons. First, there is ample land for re-
sidential, commercial, and industrial development near Greensboro
in the transition zones. Since the supply is available, the demand
should not push the cost of land to a level where people will have
to seek cheaper rural land for their housing needs. This negates
a financial incentive for leapfrogging. Second, a further finan-
cial incentive is the higher cost of living far from Greensboro in
terms of transportation and utility connections. Finally, Guilford
County has the power to limit this possibility through its highway
programs and through zoning.
The proposed action will change land ownership patterns
in the study area, particularly east of the city limits. Residential,
commercial, and industrial uses will replace some of the agricultur-
al land. Nonresidential land use will develop around the new plant
with adequate zoning. Land values in the long run will increase
east of Greensboro.
V-56
-------
3. Community Services and Facilities
a. Direct Effects
Direct effects of the proposed action are related to
the population growth which will result from construction and
operation as well as the location of a particular component near
a public facility. In the first case, the increment of growth
caused by construction and operation itself is so small that no
additional capacity will be required. As far as the second po-
tential problem is concerned, no facilities are near the new
South Buffalo plant. Hence, there will be no adverse effects
directly associated with the proposed action.
b. Indirect Effects
As a consequence of growth, Greensboro and Guilford
County are going to have to expand certain services and facili-
ties. These required expansions can be thought of as adverse
impacts in a strict sense. However, by identifying potential
needs now, planning measures by appropriate officials will miti-
gate the effect.
Assuming the current city ratio of employees to popula-
tion will continue to the year 2000, and applying this ratio to
growth now projected throughout the Study Area, 226 additional
police officers and 163 additional firefighters will be needed
to serve anticipated population growth. Also, six to nine addi-
tional fire stations will be needed.’
The educational system will have to expand. Although
in recent years the school age population has continued to decline,
‘Estimates based upon criteria suggested by CH-399.
V-57
-------
approximately 15 to 18 additional elementary schools, two or three
junior high schools, and one senior high school will be needed by
2000 (CH-399).
Within the county, branch libraries are opened as need
arises. Service areas can be determined, and, if additional li-
brary services are needed, branch stations can be opened in shop-
ping centers or other convenient locations.
Health services in Greensboro and Guilford County now
appear sufficient, especially with the imminent opening of Huiriana
Hospital. As need arises, new facilities will certainly be provided.
Additional neighborhood and community parks and recrea-
tion facilities will be needed to serve the population growth. The
city and county could incorporate these facilities into plans for
new subdivisions and residential areas.
The water supply for the City of Greensboro (Lake Higgins,
Lake Brandt, Lake Townsend) has an estimated safe yield of 46 MGD.
Current water use averages 22.5 MGD with an average summer daily
us.e of 27 MGD. The increased water demand from the additional
population and industrial growth over the next twenty years will
increase this present water use to near the safe yield capacity.
For this reason, construction plans for a new reservoir site (Ran-
dieman Reservoir on Deep River) with an expected yield of 33 MGD
have begun. When completed, this additional reservoir will insure
an adequate but still limited water supply for both the cities of
Greensboro and High Point. The proposed action essentially commits
the city to locating and implementing a new water supply by the
end of the design period by accommodating the projected growth.
Beyond the year 2000, Greensboro will soon require even more water
than that provided by Randleman Reservoir.
V-58
-------
4. Taxes and Budgeting
a. Direct Effects
The City of Greensboro is prepared to pay for the pro-
posed action. In themost recent Annual Budget (GR-334), $5.0
million (12.5% of total improvements) had been allocated for sewer
improvements through 1980. Of this amount, $1.8 million will come
from existing bonds, $1.2 million from proposed bonds, and $2.0
million from revenue sharing. Eighty-seven and one-half percent
of the total cost of improvements will come from federal and state
funds.
The above bonds will be paid for through user charges
and installation assessments. User charges are already scheduled’
to increase slightly in the near future to produce more revenue.
Also, new customers in peripheral areas will be added soon. With
Greensboro’s favorable bond rating (AA by Moody), the interest
should be fairly low. Also, Greensboro’s existing debt is rela-
tively low (the total debt service is only 2.5% of assessed val-
uation). It appears that Greensboro can afford to incur a sewer
debt at this time.
Facilities described in the proposed action will provide
sufficient wastewater treatment at a cost of approximately $.41/
1000 gallons. To upgrade the existing facilities and maintain their
capacity with expanded treatment provided through septic tanks
constitutes a type of No Action. This alternative would provide
treatment at a cost of approximately $.47/l000 gallons owing to
the reduced economies of scale.
Other taxes and budgets in Greensboro and Guilford County
should not be directly affected by the proposed action.
V-59
-------
b. Indirect Effects
Population growth means the growth in services and the
cost of government. Obviously, local government wants revenues
to increase at least proportionately. If this is the case, dis-
proportionate increases in taxes and budget problems should not
occur. As long as local government plans for this situation,
there will be no strain on the fiscal condition of the area.
If appropriate planning measures are not taken to insure
against leapfrogging and low density sprawl, there may eventually
be increases in the cost of public services. For instance, sprawl
is very expensive when road and utility costs are considered (RE-
118). Increased costs are experienced both in the construction
and maintenance of these public facilities. These costs would have
to be covered by increased revenues, probably in the form of higher
taxes.
5. Archaeological, Cultural, Historical, and
Recreational Resources
a. Direct Effects
The upgrading of the North Buffalo plant will not ad-
versely affect any of these resources since no expansion will be
required. The closing of the existing South Buffalo plant will
be a positive action for the area immediately surrounding it.
It may even represent an addition to the recreational resource
inventory of Greensboro since the city owns the land. As an area
susceptible to flooding, a park is not out of reason for that
acreage, and it could be integrated into a recreational corridor
that would include the existing playground several thousand feet
upstream.
V-60
-------
The outfall from the existing South Buffalo plant to
the proposed site does not pass through designated recreational
areas except the creek itself, and children often play along
creeks. However, the construction will proceed rapidly (3,000
feet per month) and, in the long run, the creek area will still
be available. Sewer emplacement should not affect the character
of the creek since it is almost completely channelized now.
The new South Buffalo site has a house and several small
buildings which may be displaced.’ None of these are on the Guil-
ford County inventory of historic places. Prior to authorization
of Step II of the 201 grant process, an archaeological survey will
be performed to ensure that any potential archaeological resources
are protected or committed. South Buffalo Creek has been channel-
ized nearly to the proposed site so that the probability of sites
is lower than it would be in an undisturbed state. Also, 40-50
acres at the potential plant site have been cleared for many years
so that any sites may have already been destroyed if they ever
existed. Within 3000 feet of the proposed plant perimeter, there
are no known historical or archaeological resources.
b. Indirect Effects
Both Greensboro and Guilford County will eventually
have to expand recreational facilities to meet future demand.
Based upon projected population growth and standard planning
guidelines (CH-399), approximately 2000 to 2500 acres of park-
lands of all types will be needed. However, adequate planning
will alleviate any overcrowding of existing facilities which may
occur as the EIS Study Area grows, and this planning is facili-
tated by the sewerage system.
‘The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources will examine
these structures for historical significance and will recommend
the appropriate action.
V-61
-------
More and more archaeological resources will be lost as
the population expands into peripheral areas if these resources
exist. However, as these resources are identified, there will be
an opportunity to learn more about the past.
6. Transportation
a. Direct Effects
The only road which should experience perceptable change
in traffic characteristics will be Huffine Mill Road which is the
major thoroughfare from Greensboro tO the proposed South Buffalo site.
This is now a two-lane, blacktop road in excellent condition. It
is the major route from rural areas of northeast Guilford County
to Greensboro. During construction this highway will experience
significantly greater traffic with many more trucks. However,
most of the truck traffic will not be during the daily commuting
periods. After the construction is completed, traffic along Huf-
fine Mill Road will revert to current conditions (assuming no other
major changes in traffic generators in that area). No significant
changes in truck traffic during operation is expected since sludge
disposal will be by incineration on site.
The access road to the new South Buffalo site will have
to be enlarged and made into an all-weather surface. It is now
a dirt road.
Rail, truck, and air transportation in the EIS Study
Area will not be affected directly by the proposed action.
b. Indirect Effects
Population growth which will be accommodated by the
proposed action will require an expansion in the ground transpor-
tation system of Greensboro. The thoroughfare plan shows that
V-62
-------
growth in all directions from Greensboro will be accommodated
regardless of sewage plant location. The proposed South Buffalo
plant will be just beyond the major thoroughfares being suggested
by the Greensboro Planning Department. Hence, the proposed site
will probably not alter future highway patterns in any discernible
manner. However, a major new transportation facility paralleling
and north of U.S. 1-85 east of Greensboro may be necessary if east-
ward growth becomes a reality.
Air transportation is to expand in the EIS Study Area
under current plans. No further expansion is likely to be attri-
butable to population growth through 2000 in Greensboro alone.
Rail transportation is adequate at this time and should not be
significantly affected by future growth beyond what is already
being planned.
7. Resource Use
a. Direct Effects
Materials (steel, cement, stone, etc.) will be required
to construct new facilities. There is no shortage of these re-
sources in the Study Area. Electricity to meet the plant demands
will be available as long as Duke Power can meet its total energy
cormnitmentS; the system will consume less than one percent of the
total current electrical demand in the Greensboro area.
b. Indirect Effects
Population and economic growth in the EIS Study Area
will require more energy in the future. Duke Power is now rely-
ing on coal for 62% of its power with 34% coming from nuclear
plants. Therefore, shortages of oil and gas for power production
are less severe in the Greensboro area than in other areas.
V-63
-------
Regardless, with the energy future of this country in great flux,
no one can safely predict the adequacy of future energy supply.
Other physical resources currently being exploited in
Guilford County are not going to be depleted as a result of pop-
ulation growth predicted in Chapter II.
V-64
-------
VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATING ASURES
A. Natural Environment
1. Air Quality
This section addresses adverse air quality impacts and
the measures that may be taken to mitigate them. The only adverse
impact estimated to occur will be caused by fugitive dust gener-
ated by construction activities at the new South Buffalo sewage
treatment plant site, depending upon weather conditions during
the construction period. To prevent dust generation, frequent
watering may be employed. Dust generation may also be reduced
by restricting the speed of hauling trucks traveling over unpaved
roads to the site. These measures should reduce dust generation
approximately 50 percent.
2. Odor
Municipal wastewater treatment facilities have been
odor sources and it is doubtful whether such odors can ever be
completely eliminated at all times. A properly Operated aeration
system should minimize odor problems but even these facilities
have characteristic odors. Wastewaters which travel significant
distances before reaching the treatment facility often become
septic and release obnoxious odors at the plant outfall or well
or at the intermittent manholes. Additionally, unit processes
throughout the treatment facility which are not supplied with
auxiliary aeration, such as primary clarUiers and sludge thick-
eners, may develop anaerobic zones and produce malodorous hydrogen
sulfide (H 2 S). Almost all facilities associated with sludge han-
dling and processing will at times be characterized as an odor
nuisance, especially in sunmier conditions.
Various structural as well as non-structural actions
can be taken to help minimize or reduce potential odor-associated
VI-l
-------
adverse impacts. The most obvious non-structural action is to
locate any new facilities away from communities and to pass local
legislation prohibiting encroachment of development on the facil-
ity. Purchase of land for use as a buffer zone is helpful in this
regard. By minimizing the number of people affected, potential
adverse impacts are reduced.
Possible structural mitigative measures include the use
of masking agents, covers and gas scrubbers for each of the major
odor producing unit processes, and pre-disinfection at various lo-
cations along the collection system. However, even with the instal-
lation of the most sophisticated odor control facilities, residual.
inherent odors will persist. Pre-treatment and proper operation
and maintenance of both plants will help keep odor levels low.
Current odor control at the North Buffalo Creek plant
includes the use of masking agents. While odor complaints are
recognized, the number is minimal and this practice appears to
have some beneficial effects considering the extent of develop-
ment surrounding the facility. Other measures which could be
considered for odor control include the installation of covers
and gas scrubbers on the sludge thickeners as well as scrubbers
on both the anaerobic digestion facilities and the sludge vacuum
filters. Covers for the thickeners can be constructed with a
aluminum siding material and supported with reinforced fiberglass
beams. These covers are light-weight and can be easily removed
for servicing. The cost for this odor control will increase the
total capital cost for improvement at North Buffalo by approxi-
mately $200,000 or 5 percent and the total operation and mainte-
nance cost by approximately $40,000 per year.
Consideration of odor control measures for the proposed
new facility should include covers and scrubbers for the primary
clarifiers and sludge thickeners as well as gas scrubbers for the
vacuum filters. Additionally, since the wastewater must travel
VI-2
-------
a relatively long distance before reaching the new facility,
pre-chiorination facilities located at the existing South Buffalo
Creek plant site should be considered to reduce the odor potential
from septic conditions at the outfall. The cost for these facilities
would increase the capital cost of the new facilities by approxi-
mately $250,000 and the operation and maintenance cost by approxi-
mately $80,000 per year.
3, Noise
The major impact of noise will occur during construction
phases and the degree of effect will depend heavily upon popula-
tion density and proximity of human habitation to noise sources.
Residences within about five hundred feet of construction activity
are expected to be subjected to n 9 ise intrusion during daytime
hours that will be of sufficient strength to be a source of inter-
ference with normal human activity. Such interference will likely
be limited to no more than one-month duration for any single resi-
dence or receptor during construction of the South Buffalo outfall.
The impact of noise from construction activity and equip-
ment can be mitigated by proper maintenance of operating equipment
and installation of noise-attenuating devices. Dozers, backhoes,
and cranes are major noise sources, and modern exhaust muffling
equipment will significantly reduce levels of radiated noise from
these sources. Techniques developed in the mining industry (US-
373) provide a means of reducing rock drill noise levels. Reduc-
tions of 6-7 dBA are possible with muffler and barrier.
Noise emissions from acoustically untreated diffuser
aerators could cause adverse human reaction within 1,000 feet
of the plant site. Control measures for reducing levels of noise
radiation include enclosure of motors and pumps, enclosure or
acoustical lagging of control valves, and acoustical lagging of
all above-ground high-pressure piping.
VI-3
-------
4. Geology
The most significant unavoidable adverse geologic impact
involves the new sewage treatment plant site where hard, tough
bedrock is overlain by only a thin soil mantle. Considerable blast-
irig may be required in some areas during construction of the plant.
This impact will be of short duration, however, and no mitigative
measures should be required.
5. Soils
The most important adverse impact on the soils will be
the removal of about 40 acres of soil from agricultural produc-
tivity. However, the soil at the site is only moderately produc-
tive, so this loss is not highly significant. A possible mitiga-
tive measure would be to clear an equivalent area of non-produc-
tive woodland at another location and place it in a similar agri-
cultural status. On the other hand, the annual changes in agricul-
tural land use in the region probably overshadow the local effects
of removing 40 acres from production or trading off the current
agricultural use for similar use at another location. The gradual
removal of agricultural lands from production via urbanization is
an indirect impact best mitigated by proper zoning.
Soil erosion and stream siltation are addressed below
under “Water Quality.”
6. Water
Streamfiow
The gradual increase in stream discharge downstream of
the new outfalls and the decrease. in stream discharge below the
old South Buffalo STP are unavoidable. However, hydraulic impacts
associated with this changing flow regimen, as identified in Chapter
V, are minor.
VI-4
-------
The major adverse impacts to streatnflow in the Greens-
boro area will occur from increases in impervious acreage and
percentage of storm sewers in watersheds experiencing urbaniza-
tion. These impacts include in order of decreasing magnitude:
• Higher Flood Flows
• More Flash Flooding
• More Frequent Flooding
• Less Recharge to Ground-Water Aquifers
To minimize the effects of these impacts, a storm
water management program is needed to both reduce the amount of
impervious area and storm sewers and control the runoff from
these areas. A general policy of land management was adopted in
January, 1977 by the Guilford County Board of County Commissioners
which calls for “slower water runoff” and “retainment of natural
vegetation” where feasible in new developments. Although no
specific measures to implement these goals are suggested, the
policy is a Step in the right direction.
The most direct measure to reduce storm runoff is to
minimize the percentage of impervious cover within watersheds.
one effective measure to accomplish this goal is the adoption
of a minimum residential lot size ordinance. As shown in the
following table, as lot size increases the corresponding per-
centage of impervious surface area decreases dramatically.
Lot Size of Impervious
Residential Area Surface Area
Square Feet Acres Percent
6,000 .14 80
10,500 .24 40
15,000 .34 25
22,000 .51 19
43,600 1.00 13
78,400 1.80 8
Source: LE-309
VI -5
-------
However, as the larger lot sizes encourage undesirable
urban sprawl (as identified in the Man-Made Environment section)
a reasonable lot size to minimize the undesirable effects of both
impervious cover and urban growth is recommended. Determination
of the most environmentally sound lot size requires more detailed
studies of each watershed’s drainage characteristics and desired
development scenarios than is necessary for the EIS but is an
appropriate mitigating measure.
Additional measures to reduce storm runoff include con-
struction of detention ponds downstream of developments to reduce
the peak flows further downstream and encourage aquifer recharge
or delayed subsurface runoff. Pavements with substantial areas
of permeable surface are also becoming an economical solution of
controlling surface runoff at the source and building codes should
be adopted to encourage its use.
Water Quality
The most likely direct impact on stream water quality
that is unavoidable derives from the erosion and increased sus-
pended sediments associated with construction of proposed facili-
ties, especially sewers. The principal adverse effect of this
temporary siltation probably pertains more to aesthetic degrada-
tion than habitat degradation in the receiving streams, but gen-
erally such siltation can be readily avoided (EN-lOl). The ero-
sion and sedimentation control plan, required by the State of
North Carolina for such facilities (NO-139), should provide for
effective sediment control through such measures as minimizing
construction in and crossing streams by environmentally sound
sewer alignment, avoiding steep slopes, removing excess material,
continuous backfilling of trenches, diverting runoff away from
undisturbed areas, timely revegetating disturbed areas with grasses
and legumes for stabilization and sediment filtering, and using
detention or retention basins in critical areas.
VI-6
-------
During very rare non-standard operating conditions at
the treatment plants and pumping stations, a very small probabil-
ity exists of raw or poorly chlorinated sewage bypassing the sys-
tem. The chance of this bypassing degrading water quality or
creating a public health hazard can be virtually eliminated by
having a back-up system with additional pump(s) and an automat-
ically operated diesel-powered generator and a large detention
structure for interim storage of sewage beyond the wet well.
Such measures can be costly (on the order of several hundred
ttousand dollars) but may be appropriate for protection of waters
used for water supply and contact recreation.
Another direct adverse impact which probably cannot be
avoided to some extent will be the inadvertent chlorination of some
hydrocarbon derivatives in the wastewaters to form potentially
dangerous compounds. The only mitigating factor that would avoid
this impact completely is disinfection using ozonation rather
than chlorination. However, the concentrations of these compounds
in receiving waters are likely to be very small, and a periodic
effluent monitoring program for trace organics would permit detec-
tion of any potential problems and subsequent implementation of
ameli0rat] . measures.
By far the most significant unavoidable adverse impacts
to water quality are those associated with increased amounts of
urban runoff of poor quality. Such runoff will probably control
the future quality of water and aquatic habitat in the upper reaches
of streams in the study area and may prevent improvements in point
source effluent quality from significantly increasing stream qual-
ity in much of the area. While not avoidable, the effects of ur-
ban runoff can be reduced. Such mitigation must recognize the
two physical processes controlling urban non-point pollutant sources.
First is the accumulation of pollutants on the land surfaces be-
tween storm runoff events. The second is pollutant removal and
transport to the receiving stream.
VI-7
-------
The accumulation of pollutants is probably impossible to
eliminate in an urban setting; however, methods which help to re-
duce the rate of accumulation do exist. Street sweeping will re-
move a large quantity of debris that accumulates in the streets.
Unfortunately, several studies which sampled Street litter have
shown that the major portion of many street surface contaminants
are contained in dust and fine dirt. Street sweeping will not
effectively remove the “dust and dirt” portion of street debris.
Public awareness and support of litter control measures also can
reduce pollutant accumulation. Even increases in air quality have
been shown to improve the quality of rainfall and reduce the quan-
tity and noxious quality of particulate matter settling on land
surfaces.
Land use planning in developing areas can reduce the
quantity of pollutants transported to the receiving lake or stream.
Conventional urban drainage systems are designed for the rapid
removal of stormwater from the urban areas. Flow velocities with-
in storm sewers are designed to scour sediment and debris from
the system, with ultimate discharge to the receiving stream. Im-
pervious areas (i.e., streets and parking lots) not only increase
the quantity of runoff but also increase overland flow velocities.
The sediment transport capacity of water is directly and geometri-
cally proportional to flow velocities; in other words, the ability
of water to carry debris increases greatly with small increases in
velocity. Consequently, the use of drainage systems designed to
reduce flow velocities in secondary or tertiary drainage systems
will tend to reduce non-point source loadings to area streams.
Grass-lined roadside swales and stormwater detention ponds will
reduce velocities and encourage sedimentation. Grass buffer zones
around impervious areas, where possible, will provide a certain
degree of filtration of stormwater as well as reduce flow velocity.
Channels and floodplains of area streams that are left undisturbed
to the extent possible will provide further buffering and reduction
1 1 1-8
-------
of flow velocities as compared to channelization. However, in
the larger trunk channels, the flooding potential may be an over-
riding concern and require more effective hydraulic conveyance
A less obvious unavoidable impact is an increased, con-
tinued reliance on septic tanks for wastewater treatment for the
growing population on the periphery of the 201 area. The soils
of the entire Greensboro area are generally unsuitable for inten-
sive septic tank usage, and the water quality degradation due to
malfunctioning septic tanks can be expected to continue. Non-
structural measures that should be implemented to reduce this
water quality and public health hazard include economic and legal
incentives for properly maintaining septic tanks by owners and
also substantial increase in the stringency of percolation tests
(e.g., the number or percentage of successful tests perforn ed pez
site) before a septic tank may be approved. The wastewater ser-
vice agreement between the city and Guilford County may be the
most appropriate vehicle to implement these non-structural mea-
sures.
Ground Water
There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to the ground-
water system. The primary possible impact of the proposed pro-
ject is the potential local ground-water quality hazard posed by
the new sewage treatment and transmission facilities. The best
mitigative measure for this potential problem is preventive and
consists of assuring that all facilities are leak-proof by proper
engineering design and construction. If detailed site studies for
the new plant indicate further that ground water will be affected,
the best mitigative measure may then be to install two or more
water quality monitor wells down-gradient from the plant site
(i.e., between the site and South Buffalo Creek). Leak-resistent
methods of construction for the raw sewage pipelines will assure
VI-9
-------
that no contamination of the small aquifer associated with South
Buff 10.
7. Land/Water Interface
Some increases in the flood flows of area creeks due to
urbanization are unavoidable in the Greensboro area. However,
appropriate mitigating measures can be taken to both minimize the
increases and protect property when increases are unavoidable.
Environmentally sound measures (as discussed in the Water Section)
to minimize increases in flood levels include: ordinances requir-
ing a minimum lot size; construction of detention ponds; utilizing
permeable surfaced roadways and parking areas; and minimizing the
construction of storm sewers and channelized stream segments.
However, even with the above measures, some increases
in impervious cover and corresponding increases in flood levels
will still occur. For this reason, proper management of both
existing and potential flood-prone areas is essential. Enforce-
ment of programs similar to the Guilford County Board of Commis-
sioners’ policies to prohibit development in “floodways, flood-
plains, and areas adjacent to public reservoirs” is necessary to
minimize flood damages to both the natural and man-made environ-
ment.
Although presently there is little development within
the floodplains in the Greensboro area, with increased urbaniza-
tion more developments will soon be within flood damaging areas.
Measures to protect these developments should therefore be under-
taken as soon as possible to prevent flood damages. One direct
measure is the construction of small earth levees to prevent water
intrusion. As long as these levees do not substantially reduce
the natural cross-sectional area of the stream, their effects
are generally minimal. Recent measures to minimize flood damages
VI-lO
-------
include “flood proofing” whereby structures in flood-prone areas
are built to minimize flood damages. An example of this type of
mitigating measure is the construction of a multi-level complex
where the ground level is a parking garage.
As increases in flood elevations are much more sensitive
to changes in impervious cover below about 10% (Chapter V.B.l.g.),
the adoption of policies encouraging development in presently urban
watersheds (e.g., North and South Buffalo Creeks) rather than in
watersheds with little existing development (e.g., Little Alamance
and Brush Creeks) is an appropriate mitigating measure. The loca-
tion of the new South Buffalo plant should not be a disincentive
for this type of development.
8. Biology
The only short-term adverse impact that will Occur as
a result of implementing the proposed action will be disturbance
of terrestrial flora and fauna in areas of construction This
disturbance will be temporary and can be mitigated by careful
choice of access roads to construction sites, muffling of engine
noise, and use of the narrowest practical right_of_way along the
pipeline route. Short-term adverse impacts on aquatic biota will
occur as a result of erosion and subsequent stream siltation
from vegetation loss at construction sites. Because both streams
are currently in very poor condition, these impacts will be slight.
They can be mitigated by employing construction methodologies re-
commended in the state’s rules and regulations governing erosion
and sedimentation control ( TO-l39) and quick revegetation of de-
nuded areas.
The discharge of treated sewage effluent into a stream
is usually considered to be a long-term adverse impact associated
with this type of project. In the case of this proposed action,
VI-li
-------
however, the discharge of a higher quality effluent into North
and South Buffalo Creeks will have a beneficial impact. Both
streams have been badly degraded by man’s use through time such
that no adverse impact from the new discharges is anticipated.
However, lower flows in the 26,000-foot segment of South Buffalo
Creek upstream from the new sewage treatment plant will favor the
growth and reproduction of vectors’ such as mosquitoes and flies.
Moist banks and backwater areas in this segment will provide ex-
cellent growth conditions for these species. Available mitigat-
ing measures for this adverse impact will be determined by fed-
eral and state regulations which govern the use of suitable vector
control agents as well as local public health regulations. This
mitigating measure has the potential for generating its own adverse
impacts if not carefully selected and applied. Indiscriminate
use of vector control agents could further degrade general habi-
tat quality in and along the stream and introduce highly toxic
substances into the food chain.
The following chart delineates the unavoidable biolog-
ical impacts associated with the proposed action and available
mitigating measures:
Unavoidable Biological Impacts otsn ial Mitig*tive Measures
Construction Disturbance
I. 4oise Muffle engines of heavy equipin.nt
2. Exposed Soil and Erosion Revegetate exposed areas quickly
3. Siltation Revegatate exposed areas quickly
and employ other methods as out-
lined in the state s Rule, for
Erosion and Sediment Control such
as divers ion ditches and catch
basins
4. Natural vegetarion loss Use as narrow pipeline easements
and as small construction Sites
as possible
Operational Die turbance
I. Noise Install noise—deadening material
around noise sources where possible
2. Odors Operate treatment fecility efficiently
to avoid upset conditions
3. Effluent diacherges: Operate treatment facility efficiently
High BOD, TSS, and to stay within BOD, and TSS atandardi.
Low DO Use temporary holding ponds to store
untreated sewage during upset or over-
load conditions to avoid bypassing
into creeks.
‘disease-carrying or transmitting insects
VI-12
-------
B. Man-Made Environment
Adverse effects related to the conflicting land uses
near the proposed South Buffalo site will be minimized by the open
space buffer which will be provided. This is an especially good
buffer since it is heavily forested.
The North Carolina Department of Archives and History
will recommend the appropriate action should historic structures
or archaeological resources be endangered by the proposed action.
Huff me Mill Road may become somewhat congested during
periods of intense construction activity. This problem can be
relieved by scheduling activity at times of low traffic flow.
Population growth which will be accommodated in the EIS
Study Area can be thought of as an unavoidable consequence of the
proposed action. Whether it is adverse or not is a qt*stion for
which the answer requires a value judgement. A recognition of
the growth potential is the mitigating measure. With a reliable
projection, decision-makers in the private and public sectors can
formulate plans to correct possible deficiencies before they occur
rather than wait for them to become obvious in a socially undesir-
able form.
The possibility of leapfrogging development in eastern
Guilford County exists. While the agencies feel that this will not be
a major trend, Guilford County and Greensboro can induce growth
near the city edge, guarding against leapfrogging, through local
development controls such as zoning, subdivision regulation, sewer
tap permits, and construction permits.
Nearly all community services and facilities will have
to be expanded or enlarged because of the population growth which
VI-13
-------
can be expected. The appropriate mitigating measure is farsighted
planning, not only by city and county government, but by the admin-
istrators of the various services and facilities such as public
safety, fire protection, health care, education, and so on.
The future transportation plan (Chapter II) will accornmo-
date the future traffic. However, transportation planners will
need to monitor traffic flow carefully to insure that overloading
does not occur. This is especially true east of Greensboro.
VI -14
-------
VII. COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
During the course of developing the EIS, much informa-
tion and assistance were provided by various federal, state and
local agencies and interested members of the community. Those
governmental offices that were contacted and the nature of their
contribution to the preparation of this EIS are listed on the
pages that follow.
The following offices and agencies participated direct-
ly in the preparation of this Draft EIS.
EIS Preparation Branch, Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
Environmental Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
The City of Greensboro
Public Works Department
Publications Department
Greensboro, North Carolina
VII -l
-------
GREENSBORO EIS CONTACTS
CONTACT
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
Air Programs Branch
Atlanta, Georgia
U.S. Geological Survey
Raleigh, N.C.
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IV
Water Quality Division
Atlanta, Georgia
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Guilford County Field Office
Greensboro, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Alamance County Field Office
Burlington, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Forsyth County Field Office
Winston-Salem, N.C.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Federal Building
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDNER
DEM
Air Quality Section
Greensboro Department of
Public Works
Greensboro, North Carolina
P URPO SE
Discuss status of current
state implementation plan.
Obtained various information on
surface water records and open
file reports.
Obtained STORET data for
Guilford County, N.C.
Obtain soil maps and descrip-
tions for Guilford County,
North Carolina.
Obtain county soil report for
Alamance Co., N.C.
Obtain county soil report for
Alamance Co., N.C.
Endangered species
Carolina.
in North
Obtain air quality data for
study area. Obtain air pollu-
tion data on sludge incinerator
at North Buffalo STP.
VII-2
-------
CONTACT
Ground Water Section
Winston-Salem Field Office
N.C. Dept. of Natural and
Economic Resources
Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dept. of Cultural Resources
State of North Carolina
Raleigh, N.C.
State of North Carolina
Dept. of Natural and Economic
Resources
Ground Water Section
North Piedmont Field Office
Winston-Salem, N. C.
State of North Carolina
Dept. of Natural and Economic
Resources
Mineral Resources Section
Raleigh, N.C.
N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission
Albemarle Building
Raleigh, N.C.
N.C. State Museum of
Natural History
Raleigh, N.C.
N.C. Dept. of Natural and
Ecological Resources
Raleigh, N.C.
Guilford County Public
Health Dept.
Greensboro, N.C.
Geology Department
Guilford College
Greensboro, N.C.
Guilford County Department
of Public Health
Greensboro, N.C.
PURPOSE
Ground water hydrology and
resource availability.
Obtain maps for ground water
parameters in Guilford County,
review draft copy of county
ground water reconnaissance
report.
Obtain geologic map of
Guilford County, N.C.
Plants and animals of study area;
game animal and sport fish
populations.
Threatened/endangered plants
and animals in Guilford Co.
Water quality data.
Request records of odor
complaints.
Coordination of the current
stream and lake monitoring
program.
Septic tank permit requirements
and the extent of failures
and malfunctions.
VII -3
-------
CONTACT PTJRPO
Cone Mills Corporation Requested information on the
Greensboro, N.C. water quality of their water supply
(Lake Buffalo).
Greensboro Water Treatment Obtained information on the water
Plant quality of Lake Brandt and Lake
Greensboro, N.C. Townsend.
University of Greensboro Local floral and faunal
Greensboro, N.C. research.
North Carolina State Rare/endangered species in
University the Greensboro area.
Raleigh, N.C.
Planning Department Data concerning population, land
City of Greensboro use, economics, transportation,
Greensboro, N.C. community services and
facilities, growth, scenarios,
sensitive areas.
Planning Department Land use ordinances, county
Guilford County zoning maps, transportation
Greensboro, N.C. maps.
Chamber of Commerce Greensboro Atlas, economic data,
Greensboro, N.C. population data.
Public Library Establish reading area for local
Greensboro, N.C. citizens.
Parks and Recreation Dept. Recreation inventory.
Greensboro, N.C.
Piedmont Triad C.O.G. Data on land use, land use
Greensboro, N.C. trends.
Tax Collector Tax data.
Greensboro, N.C.
Tax Assessor Tax data.
Guilford County
Greensboro, N.C.
Public Works Department Sewer rates.
Greensboro, N.C.
City Manager City budget.
Greensboro, N.C.
VII-4
-------
CONTACT PURPOSE
School Superintendent Data concerning educational
Guilford County system.
Greensboro, N.C.
Employment Security Commission Cuilford County employment data.
Raleigh, N.C.
Office of the Mayor Greater Greensboro planning
Greensboro, N.C. activities.
Guilford County Planning Land use, population forecasts,
Commission master plans.
Greensboro, N.C.
Off ice of Congressman Pryor Resolutions of design flow.
Greensboro, N.C.
VII-5
-------
GREENSBORO EIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
An advisory and review counnittee was organized to provide
a forum for obtaining citizens input during development of the EIS.
This group, called the Greensboro EIS Advisory Committee (GAC), was
comprised of citizens representing a variety of parties of interest
in the selection of Greensboro’s wastewater management system. Dur-
ing preparation of the EIS, the GAC:
1. Became informed through provided materials and
other means on the EIS and PL 92-500, Section 201
processes and their purposes;
2. Reviewed and provided comment on an advance
version of the EIS chapter--Chapter II, Existing
Environment--to ensure that major local areas
of interest had been covered;
3. Provided judgements on the relative importance
of selected environmental categories that were
used as inputs to the alternatives environmental
evaluation system;
4. Reviewed the selected design flow and provided
comments;
5. Recommended additional wastewater treatment
plant sites to be considered in the alternatives
evaluation process;
6. Provided recommendations on preferred alterna-
tives; and
7. Critiqued the proposed action.
VII-6
-------
Solicitation for representatives for GAC was first made
at the November 10, 1977 public meeting at the municipal auditorium;
986 people registered. After organizing the committee, a series of
meetings were held to obtain inputs at several decision periods
in the EIS process and to keep representatives informed on the EIS
status. Meeting dates and major topics covered in each meeting
are listed below:
December 21, 1977 - Orientation and instruction on
legislation, authorizations, EIS structure and purpose.
January 17, 1977 - Detailed discussion of Chapter It
and each of twenty-two environmental categories (see
Table 111-4) and ranking by GAC of the importance of
each category in the Greensboro environment (see Table
111-5).
March 16, 1977 - Discussion of results of environmental
rankings by GAC; description of new design flow and the
basis for development of 124 new alternatives; recom-
mendations from GAC on additional alternatives.
May 2, 1977 - Discussion of screening process used to
eliminate all but eleven alternatives that were selected
for the next level of environmental and economic analysis;
inputs from GAC on preferred alternatives after review
of prepared material and discussion period.
May 19, 1977 - Discussion of six alternatives that were
selected from eleven; recommendations were made for in-
vestigation of a new site as a potential location for
the South Buffalo plant
VII-7
-------
July 12, 1977 - Discussion of detailed environmental,
economic, engineering, legal, and social aspects of
seven alternatives including No Action; discussion
and description of the proposed action.
Following is a listing of representatives and organiza-
tions serving on the GAC:
Mr. Ray Shaw
Mr. Charles Mortimore
Mr. Gaston Faison
Mr. Brent A. Hall
Mr. Tom Routh
Mr. Thomas E. Hubert
Mr. Carl Loop
Mr. Lindsey Cox
Mr. Fred Clapp
Mr. Richard Rough
Mr. David Dansby
Mr. Herman Fox
D:r. Burley Webb
Mr. Gerard Gray
Mr. John Jezorek
Dr. Ernest Lumsden
Ms. Jean Lumsden
Ms. Ellen Olson
Mr. Francis Steltzer
Mr. Bob Cole
Ms. Pat Walker
Ms. Betty Cone
Dr. Paul Lutz
Mr. R. L. Thomas
Mr. William Ashworth
City of Greensboro
County Commissioners
Chamber of Commerce
PTCOG
Board of Realtors
Greensboro Citizens Association
North Carolina A & T University
Environmental Action Coalition
League of Women Voters
Rural/Suburban Community
The Sierra Club
Guilford County Advisory Board
for Environmental Quality
Concerned Citizens of McLeansville
VII-8
-------
McLeansville Community Council
Piedmont Council of Engineering
and Technical Societies
NAACP
GATEWAYS
McLeansville Merchants Association
Greensboro Jaycees
Audubon Society
Homebujiders Association
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
S. T. Hoffman
Judy Huckabee
E. R. Lashley
J. B. Erwin
B. J. Battle
Ann Lineweaver
Herbert Reese
Jim Jobe
Bill Anderson
Tom Veal
Tom Duckwall
R. H. Souther
W. S. Griswold
VII-9
-------
B IBLIOGRAPHY
Chapter II
BA-157 Barry, Robert E. and David P. Hoffman, “Computer Model
for Thermal Pollution”, ASCE, J. Power Div. 98(POl),
117-32 (1972).
BA-492 Barick, Frank B., Management of the White-Tailed Deer
in North Carolina , Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina Wild-
life Resources Commission, Game Division, March 1953.
BR-355 Braun, E. Lucy, Deciduous Forests of Eastern North
America , Philadelphia, Blakiston Co., 1950.
BR-358 Brown, Ken, Private Communication, City of Greensboro,
Lake Townsend Water Treatment Plant, December 8, 1976.
BR-359 Braughier, Owen, Private Communication, Guilford County
Public Health Department, Greensboro, North Carolina,
November 6, 1976.
CA-380 Carnes, William C., James R. Davis, and Buford L. Tatum,
Survey and Classification of the Deep-Haw Rivers and
Tributaries, North Carolina , Final Report, Raleigh,
North, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
1964.
CH-168 Charles,M.E., “Transport of Solids by Pipeline”,
Paper A3, Proceedings, First International Conference
on Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes , September,
1970, Cranfield, Bedford, England, British Hydromechanics
Research Association, 1971.
B-i
-------
CL-093 Clay, James W., Douglas N. Orr, Jr., and Alfred W. Stuart,
North Carolina Atlas, Portrait of a Changing Southern
State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, University of North
Carolina Press, 1975.
CO-052 Cottrell, William B., Compilation of United States
Nuclear Standards , 5th ed., ORNL-NSIC-57, Oak Ridge,
Tenn., Oak Ridge National Lab., 1968.
CO-391 Conant, Roger, A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians
of the United States and Canada East of the 100th Meri-
dian , Illustrated by Isabelle Hunt Conant., Boston,
Houshton Miff lin, 1958.
CO-582 Cooper, K.E., S.S. Roberts, and J.B. Funderburg, En-
dangered Plants and Animals of North Carolina , Raleigh,
N.C., Museum of Natural History, 1977.
DA-227 Dawley, Charlotte, The Birds of Guilford County , North
Carolina, Reprinted from The Chat 18(2), June 1954.
DI-128 Dinga, Carl F., et al., Population and Urban Growth,
Projected Water Requirements and the Potential Avail-
ability of Ground and Surface Water Resources in Guil-
ford County , North Carolina, University of North Caro-
lina at GreenSboro, February 1975.
EN-485 Engineering-Science, Inc., North Carolina Air Qua1itY
Maintenance Area Analysis , Final Report, Volume I, EPA
904/9-76-005a, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1380, Task 7,
McLean, Virginia, April 1976.
ER-038 Eric Hill Associates, Subcontract interim report to
Radian Corporation, May 1977.
B-2
-------
FE-187 Federal Water Pollution Controll Admin., Middle Atlantic
Region, Water Quality Survey, Haw River Sub-Basin, Stun-
mer 1969 , Data Report No. 3, 1969.
FI-137 Fish, Frederic F., A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters
in North Carolina , Raleigh N.C., North Carolina Wild-
life Resources Comm., Division Inland Fisheries, 1968.
FL-063 Flora, Snowden D., Hailstorms ofthe United States ,
Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1956.
FL-077 Floyd, Edwin 0. and Richard R. Peace, An Appraisal of
the Ground-Water Resources of the Upper Cape Fear River
Basin North Carolina , Ground Water Bullentin Number 20,
U.S.G.S. and the North Carolina Office of Water and Air
Resources, May 1974.
FU-072 Funderburg, J.B., Jr., The Populations, Habitat, Rela-
tions and Ecological Changes in the Winter Birds of
the Ra1e gh, North Carolina Region 1880-1959 , Ph.D.
Dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1959.
GR-263 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Community Council,
Report of Committee on the Study of Health Services ,
1965.
GR-272 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Chamber of Commerce,
Council on Research, Greensboro Research Report on...
General Characteristics of the Population: 1970 Greens-
boro--By Census Tract , Greensboro, North Carolina.
B-3
-------
GR-279 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Department of
Planning and Community Development, “Greensboro Urban
Area Transportation Stuyd, Annual Report 1974-75”,
Greensboro Daily News 1975 (Dec. 7).
GR-291 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Planning Dept.,
Unpublished data RE: population.
GR-292 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Planning Dept.,
Unpublished data RE: retail openings and closings.
GR-293 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Planning Dep.,
Unpublished data RE: new manufacturing locations.
GR-294 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Chamber of Commerce,
Private communication with Tom Routh, Dec. 8, 1976 and
Dec. 9, 1976.
GR-295 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Planning Dept.,
Map of environmentally sensitive area, 1976.
GR-296 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Planning Dept.,
Unpublished data RE: employment projections for non-
farm industries.
GR-297 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Budget and Research
Dept., Private communication with Him Sykes, Dec. 8, 1976.
GU-105 Guilford, County of, North Carolina, Storet water quality
data for Greensboro, N.C. obtained from EPA Region IV,
Nov., 1976.
B -4
-------
GIJ-106 Guilford, County of, North Carolina, Finance Dept.,
Private communication with Al Weilman, Dec. 8, 1976
and Dec. 13, 1976.
HA-527 Hazen and Swayer, Greensboro-Guilford 201 Facilities
Plan, references, 2 vols., Raleigh, N.C., various dates.
HA-544 Hazen and Sawyer, Greensboro-Guilford County Regional
Wastewater Facilities Plan, Environmental Assessment
Statement, Raleigh, N.C., 1974.
HE214 Hendrickson, H.T., “Biological survey of South Buffalo
Creek, Horsepen Creek and North Buffalo Wastewater
Treatment Plant Site”, Appendix D, in Greensboro-Guilford
County Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan, Environmental
Assessment Statement, City of Greensboro, North Carolina ,
Raleigh, N.C., Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, undated.
HE-216 Hendrickson, H.T., Greensboro-Guilford County Regional
Wastewater Facilities Plan, Environmental Assessment
Statement, City of Greensboro, North Carolina, addendum
#16 , Raleigh, N.C., Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, Jan.
1976.
HE-222 Hendrickson, Herbert T., Private Communication, University
of North Carolina at Greensboro, November 1976.
H0318 Howard, Joe, Private communication, Duke Power, Dec.
2, 1976.
KU-117 Kuchier, A.W., “The Potential Natural Vegetation of the
Conterifliflous United States”, in The National Atlas of
the United States of America , U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C., 1970.
B-S
-------
RA-340 Rains, Bernard A., Mario J. DePrimo, and I.L. Groseclose,
Odors Emitted from Raw and Digested Sewage Sludge , EPA
670/2-73-098, Kansas City, MO, EPA, Region VII, December
1973.
RA-R--406 Radian Corporation, Technical Reference Document Prepared
for Greensboro, North Carolina Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, EIS, June 1977.
RO-285 Ross, Glenn and Steve Lund, Assessment of North Carolina
Ambient Air Quality Data for 1975 , North Carolina Dept.
of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of Environ-
mental Management, Air Quality Section, May 1976.
SI-138 Simmons, Clyde E., Sediment Characteristics of Streams
in the Eastern Piedmont and Western Coastal Plain Regions
of North Carolina , Raleigh, North, U.S.G.S., 1975.
US-305 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Threatened of Endangered
Fauna or Flora, Review of Status of Vascular Plants and
Determination of ‘Critical Habitat”, Fed. Reg. 40 (127),
Pt.V (1975).
US-528 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Profile, Greensboro and Greensboro/WiflStOfl
Salem,/High Point SMSA , Greensboro, N.C., Greensboro
Chamber of Commerce, Counti]. on Research.
US-557 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census
of Population; 1970, Volume 1, Characteristics of the
Population, Pt.1, U.S. Sunmiarl , Washington, D.C., June
1972.
B -8
-------
TJS-558 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census of Population: 1970, Volume 1, Characteristics
of the Population, Pt. 35, North Carolina , Washington,
D.C., October 1972.
US-559 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census of Population: 1960, Volume 1, Characteristics
of the Population, Pt. 35, North Carolina , Washington,
D.C.
tJs-660 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census
of the Population: 1970, Volume 1, Characteristics of
the Population, Pt. A, Number of Inhabitants, Section I,
U.S., Alabama-Mississippi , Washington, D.C.
US-661 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Thir-
teenth Census of the United States (1910), Volume 3,
Population, Reports by States , Washington, D.C.
US-662 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Four-
teenth Census of the United States (1920), Volume 3,
Population, Composition and Characteristics of the Popu-
lation by States , Washington, D.C.
U.S.-664 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census
of Housing: 1970, Block Statistics, Final Report, HC(3)-
168., Greensboro, N.C. 1 Urbanized Area , Washington, D.C.
3-9
-------
Chapter III
NO-ill North Carolina, State of, Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Manage-
ment, Water Quality Management Plan, Cape Fear River
Basin, Sub-Basin 02 , Raleigh, North Carolina, Environ-
mental Management Commission, October, 1974,
RA-R-406 Technical Reference Document Prepared for Greensboro,
North Carolina Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EIS ,
Austin, Texas, Unpublished.
ST-352 Stanley Consultants, Inc., Wastewater Treatment Unit
Processes Design and Costs Estimating Data , Contract
No. DACW21-74-C-0067, Savannah, Georgia, Savannah District
Corps of Engineers, January, 1975.
VA- 123 Van Note, Robert H., et al., A Guide to the Selection
of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems , EPA-
430/9-75-002, EPA Contract No. 68-01-1973 and 68-01-
1276, San Francisco, Bechtel, Inc., July 1975.
Chapter V
B0-054 Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise From Construction
quipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home
pp1iances , PB 206 717, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
BU-264 Buchanan, Bill, Private communication, Manager, Central
Rock Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, 28 June 1977.
B-b
-------
CH-399 Chiara, Joseph de and Lee Koppelman, in Urban Planning
and Design Criteria , 2nd Edition, New York, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1975, pp. 331-33.
EN-071 Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors , 2nd Edition with Supplements,
AP-42, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Feb. 1972,
April 1973, July 1973, September 1973, July 1974, January
1975, December 1975, February 1976.
EN-108 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety , EPA 550/9-74-004, Washington,
D.C., 1974.
EN-483 Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Evaluation
of Potential Odor and Noise Production from the Proposed
Arlington East Sewage Treatment Plant , 2 volumes, EPA
Contract Order No. 68-01-2384, Task 1, Gainesville, Florida,
September 1975.
EN-610 Environmental F rotection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric,
and Fluid System and Component Reliability , EPA-430-
99-77-001, Washington, D.C., undated
GR-283 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Application for a
“ Permit” to Construct and Operate Air Pollution Abatement
Facilities and/or Emission Sources , Greensboro, North
Carolina, undated.
GR-334 Greensboro, City of, North Carolina, Annual Budget for
the Fiscal Year July 1, 1977- June 30 , 1978, undated.
ME-O5O Memphis State University, Effects of Noise on Wildlife
and Other Animals , PB 206 720, 1971.
B-il
-------
NO-ill North Carolina, State of, Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Manage-
ment, Water Quality Management Plan, Cape Fear River
Basin, Sub-Basin 02 , Raleigh, North Carolina, Environ-
mental Management Commission, October 1974.
NO-139 North Carolina, State of, Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Sedimentation Control Commission,
Rules and Regulations for Erosion and Sediment Control ,
April 1974.
PU-050 Putnam, Arthur L., Effect of Urban Development of Floods
in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina , Raleigh,
North Carolina, U.S.G.S., 1972
RE-118 Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl ,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
US-562 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Guilford County Progressive Soil Survey, Interim Report,
Interpretations for all Soils Identified and Mapped in
Guilford County , March 1973.
Chapter VI
EN-lOl Environmental Protection Agency, Processes, Procedures,
and Methods To Control Pollution Resulting From All
Construction Activity , EPA 430/9-73-007, Washington,
D.C., 1973.
NO-139 North Carolina, State of, Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Sedimentation Control Commission,
Rules and Regulations for Erosion and Sediment Control ,
April 1974.
B-]..2
------- |